Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Rolf Furuli" <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear David,

You have not really answered my basic question, "How do we distinguish 
between past reference and past tense?"  Your comments show that your 
approach is completely theory-dependent. You start with several linguistic 
theories, the prototype theory, the theory of grammaticalisation etc., and 
explain the Hebrew text in light of these. It seems to me that this is a 
"pick and choose" game; the theory assumes this and that and therefore we 
understand a particular text in a particular way, and there are no controls. 
My point is: WAYYIQTOLs, WEYIQTOLs, YIQTOLs, QATALs, WEQATALs, participles, 
and infinitives do have past reference. I am perfectly aware that 
participles and infinitives and finite forms with and without prefixed 
WAY(Y)- AND WE- tend to have different syntactic functions, some are 
senetence initial and others are not, and some are often used together with 
particular words. Just to describe syntax and function of the examples begs 
my question. So again, by which criteria can you point to a WAYYIQTOL with 
past reference and say that it is preterit and to a YIQTOL with past 
reference and say it is not a preterit.

A few more examples:

1a) and they returned (WAYYIQTOL) to Jerusalem. 2 Samuel 17:10

1b) and the people returned (YIQTOL) after him. 2 Samuel 23:10

2a) and he made (YIQTOL) a house for the daughter of Pharaoh.  1 Kings 7:8

2a) and he built (WAYYIQTOL)  a house on the high places.  1 Kings 12:31

3a) and Jehudi read it (WAYYIQTOL) to the king.. Jeremiah 36:21

3b) with his mouth he read (WAYYIQTOL) all these words to me. Jeremiah 36:18

Again: What are the criteria for claiming  that the WAYYIQTOLs in 1, 2, and 
3 are preterits and the YIQTOLs are not?

I have a much simpler explanation, based on the study of the text and not on 
theory: The reason for the differences is word order. When the verb is 
sentence initial a WAYYIQTOL is often chosen, when a word element precedes 
the verb, a YIQTOL is often chosen. The semantic meaning of both forms is 
exactly the same. Examples of several forms in the same context is 2 Kings 
3:24-26. Here we find 9 WAYYIQTOLs, 3 YIQTOLs, 3 QATALs, and 1 WEQATAL. How 
can we know which forms represent past tense and which represent past 
reference? One example with WEQIQTOLs where we normally expect WAYYIQTOLs is 
Nehemiah 3:14,15 (3 YIQTOLs, 3 WEYIQTOLs, and 2 QATALs).



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Kummerow" <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 11:49 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Verbal Aspect (was Tenses - Deut 6:4)


> Hi Rolf,
>
> Comments below:
>
>
> > Dear David,
> >
> > It takes much time to participate in discussions like this one, and I am
> > on the
> > point of finishing a book. So I cannot continue much longer. Just a few
> > short questions:
>
> I agree, I have work to continue, too. But your prompting helps to think
> of things in different ways.
>
>
> > 1) What is the "prototypical funtion" of a verb? How can it be
> > identified? On the basis of texts? Or is the identification just
> > guesswork without any controlling parameters to check the conclusions?
>
> Prototype theory is now used within (functional?) linguistics for
> understanding conceptual categorisation of lexical stock,
> parts-of-speech, etc (see, eg, Croft 2001; Croft & Cruse 2004). Central
> to this theory is that some members of a category are more prototypical
> members, while others are more peripheral. Regarding the prototypical
> function of a verbal form, this is admittedly a difficult task for a
> dead language. This is where typology is helpful (see Miller 2004): it
> provides a framework in which the possibilities and functional
> constraints are shown. Added to this is the area of grammaticalisation
> theory. All of this helps to reveal what the options and non-options
> are, the identification of constructions, the primacy of certain
> constructions over others, etc.
>
> > 2) How can we distinguish between past tense (grammaticalised location
> > in time) and past reference (when the reference is based on the context
> > and not on the verb form)?
>
> For BH I suggest: though an analysis of paradigmatic verbal contrasts,
> diachronic change, constructional analysis, etc. What we do know is that
> Hebrew moves from aspect to tense over time. At some point, then, there
> will be a stage where the language is unstable with respect to tense and
> aspect. It is not as if one week the language marked verbs for aspect
> and then the next marked tense. At some stage there will have been a
> state of flux and change. I think this is something of the case for BH.

RF: This is an excellent example of how linguistic theories are forced upon 
classical Hebrew. How in the world do you know that "Hebrew moves from 
aspect to tense over time"? Please prove it on the basis of  the text of the 
Tanakh!

> As such, tense-only and aspect-only theories do not seem to work: hence
> all the debate.

RF
The aspect-only view works excellent on the basis of my definition of the 
verb forms - with no exceptions

So while my tense labels for the verb forms are attempts
> at identifying prototypical functions, they are just that, prototypical.
> The language has not absolutely moved to tense, so there are
> discrepancies, exceptions, whatever you want to call them. But this is
> only natural for language.

RF
Both Yes and No. If a language is exclusively aspectual, there are no 
exceptions to the aspectual use of verbs..

snip
> Regards,
> David Kummerow.
> _______________________________________________

Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo