Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>]

Vadim,

I am sorry, but the point of this discussion escapes me. Are you  
saying that we do not know what wayiqtol is without the  
"demonstration" that it is a "deictic shift" from the "deictic center"?

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Mar 6, 2007, at 12:18 PM, Vadim Cherny wrote:

> It's really odd how we keep returning to the same subject over and  
> over
> again.
> I demonstrated some time ago that all "future tense" uses of qatal are
> deictic shifts which are, incidentally, fully paralleled in Russian  
> and to
> an extent in English. Such deictic shifts are pretty expected in  
> energized
> narrative.
> Likewise, wayiqtols are very clearly the past tense verbs, again  
> allowing
> for the situation, typical in recital, that some wayiqtols means,  
> "and he
> would say," a matter of deictic shift.
> No other explanation passes the Occam's razor and, as Rolf  
> correctly noted,
> is not consistent with earlier grammatical theories. The notion of
> "prophetic perfect" is just funny because it presumes that other
> (non-prophetic) Jews spoke a different dialect. Rolf is also right in
> demanding explanations for the purported exceptions.
>
> Vadim Cherny
> http://vadimcherny.org/hebrew/grammatical_function_hebrew_yiqtol.htm
> http://vadimcherny.org/hebrew/hebrew_verb_paradigms_originated.htm
>
>
> > > You paint a carricature of my position. In view of all the times  
> > > we have
> > > discussed Hebrew verbs, you should be able to do better. I do not  
> > > deny
> > > exceptions and a substandard use of language. What I challenge is  
> > > ad hoc
> > > explanations in order to save a hypothesis. Therefore I make a
> linguistic
> > > demand that exceptions must be explained. For example, In the 19th
> century
> > > QATAL was viewed as past tense, and at the end of the century, as  
> > > past
> tense
> > > or the perfective aspect. It was discovered that several QATALs had
> future
> > > reference, and in order to save the theory, the "prophetic  
> > > perfect" was
> > > postulated, the action was completed in the mind of the prophet.  
> > > (A. B.
> > > Davidson (1894) "Hebrew syntax") is a good example. The view has  
> > > later
> been
> > > parroted by different grammarians, but I have never seen anyone  
> > > proving
> the
> > > claim.
> >
> > Several quite reasonable explanations of this situation have been put
> > forward, mostly based on the idea (for which there is good  
> > phonological
> > evidence) that WAYYIQTOL comes from a quite different early  
> > Semitic verb
> > form from regular YIQTOL.
> > > The principle of a property being uncancellable is very simple:  
> > > Even a
> > > shoolboy understands that the clauses "I will come yesterday" and "I
> came
> > > tomorrow" are ungrammatical. There is no purpose in trying to find a
> special
> > > situation where one of the clauses can be used.
> >
> > "If I came tomorrow, I would be able to see him before he goes  
> > away the
> > next day". This perfectly grammatical sentence proves that past  
> > tense is
> > not uncancellable in English. Similarly there are perfectly  
> > grammatical
> > constructions in which the past verb form in Hebrew is used with  
> > future
> > reference, and vice versa. I don't see the difference in  
> > principle; if
> > one is semantic, the other is semantic, if one is pragmatic, the  
> > other
> > is pragmatic, or maybe this is not a meaningful distinction.
> >
> > In fact the reason why "If I came tomorrow..." is grammatical is that
> > this is not really a past tense, but a subjunctive, but in English  
> > the
> > past and the subjunctive have acquired almost identical forms. But  
> > the
> > forms are distinct for the verb "to be", so "If I were in town
> > tomorrow..." is historically more correct, not "If I was in town
> > tomorrow..." Nevertheless, many speakers would say the latter because
> > this subjunctive distinction is fading away. This is very similar  
> > to the
> > evidence, not always consistent, from certain verb forms e.g.  
> > lamed-he
> > verbs that WAYYIQTOL is "apocopated" which, according to a very
> > plausible explanation, means that it comes from an originally  
> > separate
> > verb paradigm which has mostly merged with regular YIQTOL.
> >
> > > If QATAL represents past tense, ...
> >
> > I am not arguing this, rather more like that QATAL is perfective  
> > aspect.
> > I think we agree on this one, although we might disagree on precise
> > definitions. My disagreement with you is largely on WAYYIQTOL,  
> > which I
> > see as also perfective and semantically as well as morphologically
> > distinct from imperfective YIQTOL.
> >
> > --
> > Peter Kirk
> > E-mail:  peter AT qaya.org
> > Blog:    http://www.qaya.org/blog/
> > Website: http://www.qaya.org/
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew