Biblical Hebrew Forum

[David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>]

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