Biblical Hebrew Forum

[David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>]

Hi James,

In response to these same issues discussed by Rolf in his thesis, I 
wrote in my review (pp.132-133):

"Is the search for isolated syntactic environments to pin down 
uncancellable verbal meaning linguistically tenable? In other words, 
does the less frequent function(s) of a verbal conjugation wholly inform 
the more frequent function(s)? Furuli states, for example, that “[t]o 
demonstrate that wayyiqtol is a semantically independent conjugation, 
one has to show … that the widespread use of wayyiqtol with past 
reference is due to the semantic meaning of the form, and not just to 
linguistic convention” (p. 48). From the perspective of psycholinguistic 
research, this is a nonsense statement: linguistic convention (i.e., the 
regular choice of speakers to use the same linguistic token[s]) does in 
fact define meaning.**  In other words, the entrenchment of meaning is 
directly related to linguistic frequency. The prising apart here of 
“semantic meaning” and “linguistic convention” results in the conducted 
search for contexts in which uncancellable meaning of the verbal 
conjugations may be ascertained. In contrast to Furuli, then, wayyiqtol 
may be taken as an independent conjugation due to (a) the clear 
prototypical function of wayyiqtol as a narrative verb form 
paradigmatically contrasting with yiqtol, qatal, qotel, etc.; and (b) 
the clear evidence of the regular choice of wayyiqtol as a narrative 
verb in BH. As a result, the functions outlined by Furuli identified in 
his isolated syntactic contexts are all better taken to be 
non-prototypical in relation to the narrative function of wayyiqtol 
rather than diagnostic and determinative. Mutatis mutandis, this is the 
same for qatal, yiqtol, qotel, etc."

**There is a long footnote listing the linguistic literature 
establishing this point which I can supply if you desire it.

What this means is that one's linguistic view informs how the data is 
treated. For Rolf, he must search for extremely isolated contexts to 
define meaning -- in his terms, about a couple of hundred examples of 
wayyiqtol out of about 14,000. However, in my view, such an approach 
runs at odds with the entrenchment of meaning established by frequency 
as per the linguistic evidence presented in functional and typological 
studies.

Regards,
David Kummerow.


> Dear James,
>
>
> We cannot assume that verbs behave in the same way, not even inside
> the Hebrew conjugations or the Hebrew stems, but I think it is
> reasonable to assume that there is a common denominator for the
> prefix forms and suffix forms in Hebrew. In all languages there are
> groups of verbs with similar morphologic characteristics that have
> some similar meanings, although the verbs in one group do not always
> behave in the same way.
>
> Take English as an example. I analyze the present participle as
> representing the imperfective aspect and perfect (not simple past) as
> the perfective aspect. The characteristics of the imperfective aspect
> is that the actions portrayed by it are not completed at reference
> time, and the characteristics of perfect is that the actions are
> completed at reference time, as is seen in 1) and 2). Verbs in the
> two groups have some uniform characteristics- they are even mutually
> exclusive. True, there may be exceptions, but such can be explained
> as exceptions.
>
> I analyze English present as neither an aspect nor a tense, because
> it can have past present and future reference. Further, I analyze
> simple past as past tense. No one would deny that 3) portrays a past
> event.
> The form "went" has an intrinsic past reference that is not caused by
> the context. There may be exceptions, but again, they can be
> explained as exceptions.
>
> 1) John was reading the book.
>
> 2) John has read the book.
>
> 3) Liz went home.
>
> In Norwegian there are also different verb groups, such as simple
> past, with an intrinsic past reference. But Norwegian do not have
> aspects.
>
> In New Testament Greek there are similar uniform groups. I analyze
> Greek future as a tense, present as the imperfective aspect (no
> tense), imperfect as a combination of the imperfective aspect and
> past tense, and aorist as the perfective aspect (no tense).  We see
> the same pattern in all the languages: there are verb groups with
> similar morphological characteristics, and the verbs in each group
> have particular temporal or aspectual characteristics. So I think we
> have good reasons to assume that the prefix forms and the suffix
> forms in BH have particular characteristics respectively.
>
> But the big question is whether the prefix  and suffix forms with
> prefixed WAW have different characteristics compared with those
> without WAW. This has been assumed since David Kimhi on statistical
> (pragmatic) grounds and not on semantic grounds. How should we
> approach this question if we wanted to make a scrupulous distinction
> between semantics and pragmatics? We should not count the eyes but
> rather examine the eyes. We must admit that in most instances of
> WAYYIQTOL it is not possible to see the inner constituency of the
> form. In narratives we see consecutive completed events expressed by
> WAYYIQTOLs. But we do not at the outset know whether the past
> reference is an intrinsic property of WAYYIQTOL or whether it is
> caused by the context (any verb forms that are used in narratives
> must per definition have past reference). Further, we do not know
> whether the inner constituensy of the WAYYIQTOLs are similar to the
> YIQTOLs or not. Therefore, we must look for situations that are so
> transparent that we can see the Inner constitueny of the WAYYIQTOLs.
> And I will say that of the about 14,000 WAYYIQTOLs, there are only a
> few hundred situations that are so transparent that we can identify
> the characteristics of WAYYIQTOLs. These transparent situations show
> that that the WAYYIQTOLs have exactly the same properties as the
> YIQTOLS, and that both forms represent the imperfective aspect.
>
> The principal similarities of both forms are that they are:
>
> 1) Conative ( attempted actions that were not carried out, she tried 
> to...").
>
> 2) Ingressive (the beginning and first part of an action made
> visible, "she began to...)
>
> I give one biblical example to illustrate what I mean by
> transparency, namely, 1 Kings 6:1 (NIV)
>
> In the four hundred and eightieth year after the people of Israel
> came out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign
> over Israel, in the month of Ziv, which is the second month, he began
> to build  (WAYYIQTOL) the house of the LORD.
>
> Because it took more than one year to build the temple, the WAYYIQTOL
> must have an ingressive force here.
>
>
> 3) Progresseve (events continue with no end in sight, "she continued 
> to...").
>
> 4) Resultative events ( the resultative state of an event made visible).
>
> 5) Intersection of the WAYYIQTOL by another verb (Like: "While Moses
> was in his tent, Joshua entered the room."
>
> In addition to these characteristics, there are several others
> showing that WAYYIQTOL represents the imperfective aspect.
>
> My point is that first of all we should not look for contexts that
> unambiguously indicate a particular temporal reference, but rather
> look for those transparent situations where we can see a part of the
> inner constituency of the verb form. To get more details, you should
> read my dissertation. Here you will find 2,106 passages with 4,261
> verbs fully analyzed.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rolf Furuli
> University of Oslo