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: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 11:24:57 +1100

Gday Karl,

You're right; but like I said, a tense-prominent view is able to predict the distributional restrictions which do actually occur. For the aspect view, it is happenchance that in the texts as we have it, even with a "psychological tense" as you suggest, that an exception does not occur. Like I said, this on its own may not be convincing, but tied with the following features of the language (repeated from another post to you), pushes me toward a tense-prominent position: 1. wayyiqtol is basically restricted to narrative past tense. 2. qatal has encroached on the meaning of wayyiqtol in direct speech, ie it is now part of the verbal paradigm whereas in pre-BH it was not. 3. In direct speech, the participle seems to have encroached on yiqtol, which may have been a present-future, but the participle has taken over some of the present tense function. 4. The default meaning of qatal in declarative non-stative clauses is absolute past. 5. qatal in non-paratactic constructions defaults to anterior tense (relative past tense). 6. Rhetorical/exaggerated future which can be explained based upon a past tense meaning. 7. qatal for politeness, which can be explained based upon a past tense meaning. 8. yiqtol sometimes used of future perfective actions. 9. qatal sometimes used of past imperfective actions.

Regarding the participle, I take it that it progressive aspect and as such is grammaticalising as a present tense in direct speech. However, it still is used for progressive aspect and functions as such with the temporal adverb "tomorrow".

Regarding future useds of qatal, like I have said in the past, these are explainable under a tense-prominent view: either they are cosubordinate, hypothetical/conditional, exaggerated futures, or relative past tense. Diachronically, the wide distribution of qatal is explainable; see eg vol 2 of Rainey's work on Amarna Canaanite and his article on the suffix verb in ANES.

Regards,
David Kummerow.

Dear David:

As I have stated before, even in a pure aspect-prominent verbal
system, there is still an implied tense within the use of the aspects.
As I understand it, that implied tense is the result of the
psychological makeup of the speakers.

Therefore, when I find a tense indicating adverb used as seldom as
`ethmol and `emesh, I find it less than convincing as a proof of
tense-prominence when it is found with only one aspect (qatal and
wayyiqtol being considered one aspect), i.e. that you need more
examples, many more.

Machar is used four times as many times, and there are several times
it is used with other than a "future" verb: the times with an
imperative don't violate that it refers to the future, but the times
with a participle understood as a present need explanation. Or do you
say that there were only two tenses in Biblical Hebrew with the
participle being tenseless?

But the strongest argument against a tense-prominant verbal system
remains the many times qatal is used in non-past tense, including
future, as well as the times yiqtol is used in a non-future tense,
including past,

Here is one place we may have to agree to disagree and remain on
friendly standing. After all, when dealing with a language where there
have been no native speakers to interview for over two millennia, it
could be that both of us are wrong.

Yours, Karl W. Randolph.







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page