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 09:44:59 +1100


My feeling is that the issue is really something of a continuum: at one end would be a language that has grammaticalised tense absolutely (even English would not fit here) and a language in which main-clause declarative verbs are entirely free. Between these two ends of the spectrum languages will scatter. Where do we position BH? My suggestion is around 3/4 to the tense end for the reasons I've outlined in previous posts.

Rolf's position seems to be inconsistent with real language, where a lot of languages do not fall entirely at one end or the other. Even in English there are various constructions where tense is neutralised. So too in Hebrew, but this is more widespread. The difficulty is really qatal, but all the uses can be constructionally defined and isolated.

Empirically, this answer is able to make sense of the debate that has raged for year after year between tense and aspect. That is, it is not surprising that there is such debate if the language fits somewhere on the continuum rather than totally at one end. Rolf's presentation in which he demonstrates no exceptions is at odds with the reality of real language where fuzziness exists because of incomplete absolute grammaticalisation.

Regards,
David Kummerow.



On 07/03/2007 16:01, Rolf Furuli wrote:
...
Fine! Then, once more to the point: Regardless of the diachronic evolution of the language, we have a text, namely the Masoretic one and the DSS. David has claimed that the WAYYIQTOLs of this text represent past tense. Then it is fully legitimate to ask on the basis which criteria he has concluded that the WAYYIQTOLs represent past tense, and the same is not true with other verb forms which refer to past completed events. The case is just as simple as that.

I agree that this is a reasonable question. But did David in fact say that "the same is not true with other verb forms which refer to past completed events", or is his definition of "past tense" just something like "verb forms which refer to past completed events"? The latter definition might be somewhat fuzzy, but it might also fit real language better than the very precise definition which you insist on.

But I don't agree that we have "a text". We have a selection of texts from various times in a period of perhaps more than a millennium, some of which may have been edited at various times during this period. And we know that there were significant changes in the Hebrew verb system during this period. So, even if there was a clean and clearly defined verbal system at every one point on the diachronic scale, and instantaneous transitions from one system to another, we would not expect to see this clean system clearly reflected in the actual texts which we have.


------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page