Biblical Hebrew Forum

[David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>]

Hi George,

Here's another reference on this topic which I found on Friday:

Moore, Kevin E. 2006. “Space-to-Time Mappings and Temporal Concepts.” 
Cognitive Linguistics 17: 199-244.

Again, the finding is the same: deictic conceptualisation of verb forms 
only occurs when tense is to some degree grammaticalised.

Regards,
David Kummerow.


> Hi George,
>
> I have now found mention of a slight link between spatial deixis (which, 
> I take it, is a necessary condition to give rise to the 
> conceptualisation of viewing "the significance of verbs spatially") and 
> aspect. Dahl (1998: 67) says regarding progressives: "The overwhelming 
> majority of progressive constructions in the world's languages are 
> periphrastic and originate in various types of phraseological 
> constructions, often with an original spatial meaning, such as 'be at 
> doing something.'" Note, though, that this is different to what you are 
> suggesting and the link between aspect and spatial deixis is there only 
> in some progressive constructions, not for perfective or imperfective.
>
> Dahl, Östen. 1998. “Aspect.” Pages 64-71 in Concise Encyclopedia of 
> Pragmatics. Edited by Jacob L. Mey. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
>
> Regards,
> David Kummerow.
>
> > Gday George.
> >
> > Sorry that I misunderstood you. But you did say: "the verbal 
> > conjugations do not speak so much about tense, but rather the reader's 
> > distance from the action. In other words, the verbs do not work on a 
> > temporal plain, but rather a spatial plain. Tense must be inferred 
> > secondarily from the spatial sphere."
> >
> > So is it that you understand the verbal system as grammaticalising a
> > foreground-background distinction and/or grammaticalising information
> > structure? But this view would have to be a little more nuanced than 
> > simply "actions of lesser or background significance are given in 
> > YIQTOL" etc etc; ie these types of distinctions would only apply in 
> > certain "text types", so a more fine-grained or constructional 
> > approach would be necessary.
> >
> > Personally, I think the view that the BH verbal system grammaticalises 
> > "the significance of verbs spatially" needs substantial justificantion 
> > in the light of the crosslinguistic or typological evidence which 
> > would dictate otherwise. That is, since other languages do not seem to 
> > grammaticalise "the significance of actions spatially" but rather TIME 
> > is viewed spatially, then this calls into question this understanding 
> > of BH. Now it could be that BH is unique - so unique that it is unlike 
> > any other language we know of in this regard - but that needs 
> > substantial justification I think, esp. with a dead language where we 
> > do not have speakers.
> >
> > In any case, see the methodology advanced in:
> >
> > Miller, Cynthia L. "Methodological Issues in Reconstructing Language 
> > Systems
> > from Epigraphic Fragments." Pages 281-305 in _The Future of Biblical
> > Archaeology: Reassessing Methodologies and Assumptions_. Edited by 
> > James K. Hoffmeier and Alan Millard. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004.
> >
> > Regards,
> > David Kummerow.