Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] b-hebrew Uncancellable meaning and Hebrew verbs

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] b-hebrew Uncancellable meaning and Hebrew verbs
  • Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 10:44:48 +1000


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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page