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: "Rolf Furuli" <furuli AT online.no>
  • To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Verbal Aspect (was Tenses - Deut 6:4)
  • Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 08:25:58 -0000

Dear David,

I do not think the readers will see the differences between our approaches on
the basis of your post, since it is not a fair representation of my position.
I do not believe we can approach a dead language without a linguistic theory
and several assumptions, for example, that the dead language behaved in a way
similar to living languages. In my dissertation I state my theory and my
assumptions.

>>> 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.

When I criticize theory-dependent approaches of classical Hebrew, I think of
approaches where the theories are the basic contributors to the conclusions
regarding the verbal system rather than the Hebrew text itself, and where
these conclusions cannot be tested or controlled. Some scholars are of the
opinion that all languages have tenses. If this is applied to Hebrew as a
linguistic theory, aspect explanations are a priori excluded, and it is the
theory which is the basis for the view of the verbal system. It seems to me
that the same is the situation when the prototype theory and the
grammaticalization theory are used in the context "from Proto-Hebrew to
classical Hebrew" in order to find the *meaning* of the Hebrew verb
conjugations. Please note the stress of *meaning*. The mentioned theories are
fine linguistic tools for different purposes, but if they are used to
pinpoint the *meaning* of YIQTOL and WAYYIQTOL, the theories are the main
contributors to the understanding rather than the Hebrew text itself.
Moreover, we know absolutely nothing about the theoretical construction
called "Proto-Hebrew", so any use of it in order to demonstrate a
grammaticalisation process is completely hypothetical.

As mentioned, grammatical theories are needed, but in order to let the
theories disturb or influence the material under study (the text of the
Tanakh ) as little as possible, I try to differentiate between semantic and
pragmatic factors in the text. For example, when I observe (observation is
basically theory-independent) that WAYYIQTOLs very often occur in narrative
texts and describe past, completed situations, I do not conclude: "WAYYIQTOL
represents past tense," or "WAYYIQTOL represents the perfective aspect". But
I ask, "The past, completed reference, is it an intrinsic part of the
WAYYIQTOL form itself, or is it caused by contextual factors?" This cannot be
answered by the prototype theory or the grammaticalisation theory, but only
by a careful study of all the WAYYIQTOLs. Interestingly, as Comrie observes,
any verb form,regardlessof it ownmeaning, used as the narrative verb must
signal past completed actions - this is the very nature of narratives.
Therefore, contrary to the common opinion, the least likely place to find the
real meaning of the WAYYIQTOL in Hebrew and the infinitive absolute in
Phoenician is in narrative texts. In order to find out whether WAYYIQTOL
represents past tense or the perfective or imperfective aspect we have to
look for situations which are so restricted that the real nature of WAYYIQTOL
is seen. There are particularly three situations where the imperfective
nature of the form is visible, 1) conative situations (attempts that were not
carriedout), 2) ingressive events (the event starts and continues without
reaching the end, and 3) intersection of one event by another (similar to
"when Rita was reading (WAYYIQTOL) the paper, John entered the room."

Then back to grammaticalisation, which means that the uses of one part of
speach become fewer and fewer, until it has a single use. Examples are the
use of QATAL as past tense and YIQTOL as a future tense in Mishnaic Hebrew.
In connection with the Tanakh we have an ideal situation for the test of any
claim that a grammaticalisation process has occurred or that one or more verb
forms are grammaticalised, since we can make a prediction that can be tested.
Regarding WAYYIQTOL we can make this prediction: If WAYYIQTOL were in the
process of grammaticalisation from the first book was written until a certain
time or until the last book was written, we expect to find the pattern that
WAYYIQTOL has fewer and fewer functions/meanings until it has only a few, or
even one funtion/meaning.
The test is to look at all WAYYIQTOLs in order to see if there is such a
pattern. I assume most list-members agree that such a deductive approach is
better than to point to grammaticalisation theory and on this basis claim
that a grammaticalisation process occurred in the Tanakh.

One last point: Both you and Peter have said that my approach is not worable
in natural language. That is wrong! I accept exceptions exactly as you do.
But I demand that pointing to exceptions in Hebrew should not be ad hoc (when
a verb contradicts one´s theory, it is labelled as an exception), but it
should be explained why a verb deserve the label "exception".


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo



----- Original Message -----
From: "David Kummerow" <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 10:20 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Verbal Aspect (was Tenses - Deut 6:4)


>
> 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.
>
>
>From farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com Thu Mar 8 04:05:09 2007
Return-Path: <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from jerusalem.smbc.com.au (mail.smbc.com.au [203.219.193.210])
by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19C264C010
for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Thu, 8 Mar 2007 04:05:08 -0500
(EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by jerusalem.smbc.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2609033C009
for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Thu, 8 Mar 2007 20:05:06 +1100
(EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smbc.com.au
Received: from jerusalem.smbc.com.au ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (jerusalem.smbc.com.au [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new,
port 10024)
with ESMTP id npLamsGvuLgi for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>;
Thu, 8 Mar 2007 20:04:49 +1100 (EST)
Received: from [192.168.0.100] (154.228.233.220.exetel.com.au
[220.233.228.154])
by jerusalem.smbc.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CA0633C007
for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Thu, 8 Mar 2007 20:04:35 +1100
(EST)
Message-ID: <45EFD1B0.8090605 AT hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 20:04:48 +1100
From: David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (Windows/20060909)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
References: <45EFCB7B.6050301 AT exemail.com.au>
In-Reply-To: <45EFCB7B.6050301 AT exemail.com.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.9
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Verbal Aspect (was Tenses - Deut 6:4)
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Biblical Hebrew Forum <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
<mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
<mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 09:05:09 -0000

Hi Rolf,

I'm sorry, but you seem to overstate things and then have to clarify
that you weren't ENTIRELY meaning what you had originally written.

I find it interesting that you say: "When I criticize theory-dependent
approaches of classical Hebrew, I think of approaches where the theories
are the basic contributors to the conclusions regarding the verbal
system rather than the Hebrew text itself". I can only see that your own
conclusions are derived from your theoretical assumptions, the very
problem you are criticising.

Regarding wayyiqtol, my opinion is that it is basically a
most-grammaticalised verb: a narrative past tense. To view the
grammaticalisation of the short prefix verb you will need to look
earlier than BH. The interesting thing to notice, though, is that qatal
is beginning to displace the functions of wayyiqtol such that in time it
dies out altogether. In BH, qatal is more often used in direct speech
for narration than wayyiqtol. Also, in LBH, wayyiqtol is less common
than it was in CBH, with qatal on the rise. Here is some
grammaticalisation in progress.

Regarding exceptions and the theory of tense and qatal, I have given
some indication of these and how they are to be resolved by the analysis
of constructions: rhetorical/exaggerated futures, cosubordination,
performatives, statives, politeness, etc.

And, further on exceptions, I have pointed in a number of posts to
exceptions for you to deal with, but you either haven't treated them, or
redefine things for yourself (eg "imperfective aspect" = "resultative").

Regards,
David Kummerow.




-------- Original Message --------
Subject: --
From: David Kummerow <kummerow AT exemail.com.au>
To: kummerow AT exemail.com.au
Date: 08/03/2007 7:38 PM
> Dear David,
>
> I do not think the readers will see the differences between our approaches
> on the basis of your post, since it is not a fair representation of my
> position. I do not believe we can approach a dead language without a
> linguistic theory and several assumptions, for example, that the dead
> language behaved in a way similar to living languages. In my dissertation I
> state my theory and my assumptions.
>
> >>>/ 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.
> /
> When I criticize theory-dependent approaches of classical Hebrew, I think
> of approaches where the theories are the basic contributors to the
> conclusions regarding the verbal system rather than the Hebrew text itself,
> and where these conclusions cannot be tested or controlled. Some scholars
> are of the opinion that all languages have tenses. If this is applied to
> Hebrew as a linguistic theory, aspect explanations are a priori excluded,
> and it is the theory which is the basis for the view of the verbal system.
> It seems to me that the same is the situation when the prototype theory and
> the grammaticalization theory are used in the context "from Proto-Hebrew to
> classical Hebrew" in order to find the *meaning* of the Hebrew verb
> conjugations. Please note the stress of *meaning*. The mentioned theories
> are fine linguistic tools for different purposes, but if they are used to
> pinpoint the *meaning* of YIQTOL and WAYYIQTOL, the theories are the main
> contributors to the understanding
> rather than the Hebrew text itself. Moreover, we know absolutely nothing
> about the theoretical construction called "Proto-Hebrew", so any use of it
> in order to demonstrate a grammaticalisation process is completely
> hypothetical.
>
> As mentioned, grammatical theories are needed, but in order to let the
> theories disturb or influence the material under study (the text of the
> Tanakh ) as little as possible, I try to differentiate between semantic and
> pragmatic factors in the text. For example, when I observe (observation is
> basically theory-independent) that WAYYIQTOLs very often occur in narrative
> texts and describe past, completed situations, I do not conclude:
> "WAYYIQTOL represents past tense," or "WAYYIQTOL represents the perfective
> aspect". But I ask, "The past, completed reference, is it an intrinsic part
> of the WAYYIQTOL form itself, or is it caused by contextual factors?" This
> cannot be answered by the prototype theory or the grammaticalisation
> theory, but only by a careful study of all the WAYYIQTOLs. Interestingly,
> as Comrie observes, any verb form,regardlessof it ownmeaning, used as the
> narrative verb must signal past completed actions - this is the very nature
> of narratives. Therefore, contrar
> y to the common opinion, the least likely place to find the real meaning of
> the WAYYIQTOL in Hebrew and the infinitive absolute in Phoenician is in
> narrative texts. In order to find out whether WAYYIQTOL represents past
> tense or the perfective or imperfective aspect we have to look for
> situations which are so restricted that the real nature of WAYYIQTOL is
> seen. There are particularly three situations where the imperfective nature
> of the form is visible, 1) conative situations (attempts that were not
> carriedout), 2) ingressive events (the event starts and continues without
> reaching the end, and 3) intersection of one event by another (similar to
> "when Rita was reading (WAYYIQTOL) the paper, John entered the room."
>
> Then back to grammaticalisation, which means that the uses of one part of
> speach become fewer and fewer, until it has a single use. Examples are the
> use of QATAL as past tense and YIQTOL as a future tense in Mishnaic Hebrew.
> In connection with the Tanakh we have an ideal situation for the test of
> any claim that a grammaticalisation process has occurred or that one or
> more verb forms are grammaticalised, since we can make a prediction that
> can be tested. Regarding WAYYIQTOL we can make this prediction: If
> WAYYIQTOL were in the process of grammaticalisation from the first book was
> written until a certain time or until the last book was written, we expect
> to find the pattern that WAYYIQTOL has fewer and fewer functions/meanings
> until it has only a few, or even one funtion/meaning.
> The test is to look at all WAYYIQTOLs in order to see if there is such a
> pattern. I assume most list-members agree that such a deductive approach is
> better than to point to grammaticalisation theory and on this basis claim
> that a grammaticalisation process occurred in the Tanakh.
>
> One last point: Both you and Peter have said that my approach is not
> worable in natural language. That is wrong! I accept exceptions exactly as
> you do. But I demand that pointing to exceptions in Hebrew should not be ad
> hoc (when a verb contradicts one´s theory, it is labelled as an exception),
> but it should be explained why a verb deserve the label "exception".
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rolf Furuli
> University of Oslo





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page