Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Verbal Aspect (was Tenses - Deut 6:4)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Verbal Aspect (was Tenses - Deut 6:4)
  • Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 09:20:01 +1100


Hi Rolf,

I'm sorry to bust your balloon, Rolf, but one simply cannot approach the data of a dead language without linguistic theory of some sort. That is, since we do not have access to native speakers from which we might elicit answers to our questions, we are on our own. Well, not entirely: we have language typology, etc, etc, as I suggest. Even if we went back to the very basics of determining lexical items vis-a-vis function words, lexical meaning, phonology, etc, these issues are all impacted by one's methodology, whether this be overtly prominent and foregrounded or not.

Your claim seems to be that since your view is theory-neutral it has a greater claim to validity than anything else. To use your own words, your approach is a "simpler explanation, based on the study of the text and not on theory". However, your basic theoretical premise is making an absolute rigid distinction between semantics and pragmatics and between past tense and past reference. Your findings directly relate to this THEORETICAL premise. To use your words: "Your comments show that your approach is completely theory-dependent. You start with [the linguistic theoretical premise of making an absolute rigid distinction between semantics and pragmatics and between past tense and past reference] ... and explain the Hebrew text in light of these."

Your claim seems to be: how is it possible for a single verb form which supposedly marks tense be used in reference to all tenses. I've pointed to how this might be resolved by way of an analysis of various constructions. You've simply ignored what I've said and have not interacted much at all. On the other hand, I've questioned why supposedly aspect marking forms be used in reference to more than one aspect. I asked for you to demonstrate this from the verse we were interacting on (https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew/2007-March/031537.html), but you did not answer. Or, further, you stated that (https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew/2007-March/031569.html): "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." And I responded that this is much the case in BH with the distributional verbal restrictions between 'ethmol, 'emesh, `attah, and machar. You have failed to interact with this, but it's important and I'd like to hear your response. What about politeness constructions and exaggerated futures? You've said nothing on that either. Why does it have to be me justifying and explaining everything?

In answer to what you say below: Describing syntax and function does not beg the question - it answers the question. By describing syntax and function we are able, in your words, to say which is a past tense and which makes past reference. If you are unable to see even a slight inkling of this, then this is where it should probably finish for us. The way you seem to treat language as devoid of any sort of constructional meaning is totally at odds with the way I approach it, so our conversation on this matter will never remotely approach agreement.

Sincerely,
David Kummerow.



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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page