Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear list-members,

According to David Kummerows his presentation of 
my dissertation is a presentation as he 
understands it. But important points he has not 
understood, and therefore his review is one-sided 
one-sided and biased



> Hi James,
>
> Here's how Rolf's thesis works as I understand it. It starts with the
> assumption that a concept of uncancellable meaning exists in language
> and that such a concept is necessary for understanding the verbal system
> of a language (p.33). That such such a concept actually exists is never
> defended in the thesis but is assumed on every page.

RF:

On p. 33 of my dissertation we read: "This means 
that features of the verbal system that cannot be 
changed or cancelled represent "semantic 
meaning," while features that can be changed or 
cancelled, represent  "conversational pragmatic 
implicature".

This shows that I do not claim that semantic 
meaning "exists wholesale across language".
And it is not true that the concept is never 
defended!  On p. 33 I used the "plod"-example, 
and in the following pages I discussed the 
uncancellable characteristics of dynamicity, 
durativity, and telicity in contrast with the 
cancellable characteristics of statitivy and 
punctiliarity. The discussion was illustrated by 
examples.


> The aim of the thesis, then, to discover the "uncancellable meaning" of
> the BH verbal forms (pp.33-34). Rolf's work is an honest work: he
> follows his methodology scrupulously throughout the work. This leads him
> to deny tense as an appropriate meaning of the verbal forms as tense
> categories are not appropriate in every instance. Similarly, this leads
> him to deny aspectual categories as traditionally understood to be
> appropriate since they do not fit every occurrence. This then leads him
> to redefine the aspectual terminology of perfective and imperfective
> into something that works as he sees it for BH. As you can see, his
> assumption that uncancellable meaning must exist in the verbal system
> leads him directly down the path of even rejecting traditional aspectual
> categories. The end result is conclusions on the BH verbal system which
> he sees but I cannot see. I am unable to see how wayyomer in every
> occurrence represents imperfective aspect. Sorry, but I just can't.
> wayyomer typically refers to a perfective state of affairs.

RF:

 David says that he cannot see the conclusions 
that I draw. One reason for this is that he has 
misunderstood my basic parameters. And when the 
foundation of a building is slanting, the whole 
building is slanting. The view the reader may get 
by reading David's paragraph above is that I 
assume that "uncancellable meaning" exists (but 
do not demonstrate it), and on the basis of this 
assumption I reject tense and aspect (in the 
traditional sense). This again is a 
misrepresentation where uncancellable meaning 
gets a role I never have ascribed to it! I will 
now show the real picture, related to the 
parameters "event time," (E) " reference time," 
(R) and  "deictic center" (C).

The truth is that the concept "uncancellable 
meaning" plays no role at all in my *analysis* of 
the verb forms-and this is the very opposite of 
what David claims. But this concept is used to 
substantiate Comrie's definition of tense as "a 
grammaticalization of location in time," i.e. the 
tenses have some uniform properties, and past 
tense and future tense must be distinguished from 
past reference and future reference. The concept, 
therefore, is a theoretical device or a model, on 
the basis of which I assume that if verb forms 
with similar morphology, has a reasonable number 
of occurrences with past, present, and future 
reference, that verb form is not a tense. This is 
exactly the same conclusion that Waltke and 
O´Connor draw in their "Biblical Hebrew Syntax"

Then back to the approach:

The parameter "deictic center" (C) (the 
definition of which David misunderstood) is the 
vantage point from which an action is viewed. 
Normally it is the present moment but it can be 
"tomorrow" as in 1) or "yesterday" as in 2)

1) When you arrive tomorrow, Liza will already have arrived.

2) When you arrived yesterday, Liza had already arrived.

The parameter "event time" was understood by 
David. Events that are not instantaneous takes 
some time, and this time from beginning to end is 
"event time" (E). In English clauses it is 
required that E is defined in relation to C, snd 
E is given a tense. But it is possible to view E 
without putting it into a tense-frame.

The parameter "reference time" (R) is very 
important. Because David misunderstood this, it 
was not possible for him to understand my 
analyses. When we report an event, we do not 
always make the whole event time visible, but 
only a part of it. Please look at 3) and 4). In 
both examples the event is factually completed, 
in 3) the imperfective aspect makes visible a 
part of the event in the middle of E, while the 
perfective aspect in 4) makes visible the end of 
the event. Broman Olsen argues that the 
differences between the aspects in English is 
semantic (uncancellable): the imperfective aspect 
portrays incomplete actions in progression while 
the perfective aspect portrays completed actions.

3) Ann was walking.

4) Ann has walked.

While event time is real time, reference time is 
conceptual time. Reference time represent an 
intersection of event time, and it can be defined 
as the part of reference time that the speaker or 
writer makes visible for the listener or reader.

In order to find the temporal reference of a 
verb, one has to find the deictic center, and 
then find reference time. If R occurs befor C, 
the reference is past, if R occurs after C, the 
reference is future, and if R coincides with C, 
the reference is present. All verbs were analyzed 
for temporal reference, but in  some cases it is 
difficult to identify C and R with a reasonable 
certainty.

The analysis of verbs in order to look for 
aspectual properties is different from the tense 
analysis. The same parameters are used, but while 
tense is the relationship between C and R, aspect 
is the relationship between E and R. Early in my 
analysis it was apparent that the verbs had 
aspectual properties, but they were both similar 
and different from the English aspects. While 
there are only two options for  the relationship 
between E and R in English (in the middle or at 
the end of E), there are about ten options in BH. 
On the basis of this, and on the basis the 
difference in quality and breadth (how big part 
of E is made visible), I concluded that the BH 
aspects were different from the English 
counterparts, and they were not mutually 
exclusive as in English. So, it is not correct 
when David refers to the view that uncancellable 
meaning exists and says;

> "Similarly, this leads
> him to deny aspectual categories as traditionally understood to be
appropriate since they do not fit every occurrence."

My definition of BH aspects as different from the 
English aspects has nothing to do with 
uncencellable meaning. It is based on a careful 
analysis of the relationship between E and R in 
all the verbs where this can be seen. That all 
verbs cannot be analyzed for aspect is an 
important point that David has criticized. I have 
called this criticism silly. Below is an 
illustration why all verbs cannot be analyzed for 
aspect. I use the familiar example 2 Samuel 12:3 
(NIV) once more.

but the poor man had nothing except one little 
ewe lamb he had bought. He raised it (WAYYIQTOL), 
and it grew up (WAYYIQTOL) with him and his 
children. It shared his food (YIQTOL), drank 
(YIQTOL) from his cup and even slept (YIQTOL) in 
his arms. It was (WAYYIQTOL) like a daughter to 
him.

The deictic center for all the verbs is the 
present moment, and there is no problem to see 
that reference time comes before C. Therefore, 
the three YIQTOLs and three WAYYIQTOLs have past 
reference. But what about the relationship 
between event time and reference time? There is 
nothing in the context that can tell us anything 
about reference time, i.e., which part of E that 
is made visible. For example, the first WAYYIQTOL 
is in the Piel stem. This could suggest that the 
man continued to keep the lamb in the state of 
being alive, which would suggest an imperfective 
force of the WAYYIQTOL (=RT intersects E in the 
middle). But we cannot be certain. And further, 
since "grow up" is a process, I think it is 
likely that the growing process is the focus, 
i.e., the lamb continued to grow (imperfective, 
RT intersects E in the middle) and not "the lamb 
had grown up" (perfective aspect, RT intersect E 
at the end). But we cannot be certain. And 
regarding the eve lamb. Did the author want to 
make visible that it "continued to eat," 
"continued to drink," and "continued to sleep? We 
cannot be certain. And the last verb, the state 
"to be". I find it very likely that the author 
wanted to make visible the continuing state of 
being a daughter (imperfective, RT intersects E 
in the middle). But again, we cannot be certain.

All the BH verbs have been analyzed for aspect, 
i.e. I have ascertained whether it is possible to 
conclude with reasonable certainty what the 
relationship between E and R is in each verb. But 
only the verbs where this is clear have been used 
to describe the Hebrew aspects and their meaning. 
I have already brought one clear example, namely, 
1 Kings 6:1 (NIV), "Solomon...he began to build 
the temple of the Lord"  In this passage RT 
intersects E at the beginning and makes the 
beginning and a small part of the action visible, 
something that indicate imperfectivity .



> If we abandon the need to have every occurrence of a verbal form
> instantiating the same meaning, then we are relieved from having to see
> in every occurrence of a verbal form the same intrinsic meaning. In this
> way, for people who view the BH verbal system as aspect-prominent, then
> some occurrences of of a verb form which do not instantiate the regular
> aspectual meaning can see an instance of the grammaticalization of the
> verbal system from aspect to tense (so Cook's dissertation). For people
> who view the BH verbal system as tense-prominant, then some occurrences
> of a verb form which do not instantiate the normal tense meaning can
> view such an occurrence as the aspectual heritage of the form still not
> completely grammaticalized away.

RF:

If we approach BH without preconceived ideas as 
to whether it is a tense-language or 
aspect-language we must view a grammaticalization 
process as mentioned above as a possibility.

The advantage of my approach using C, E, and R, 
is that the approach has no assumptions regarding 
tense or not, or regarding aspect or not. But 
these parameters can be used to find out whether 
BH has tenses and whether it has aspects, andif 
the aspects are similar or different from the 
English aspects. Moreover, the parameters can be 
used to find out  whether there is a 
grammaticalization process that is not yet 
finished as well.

If there had been such a grammaticalization 
process, it must have occurred over several 
hundred years, and traces of it must be seen. In 
other words, it must either be seen that the form 
in question was used in different ways in the 
oldest books of the Tanakh, and then became more 
specific until it had only one use (being fully 
grammaticalized), or two or a few uses (the 
grammticalization process was not being 
completed). Or if the assumption is that there 
was a grammticalization process from aspect to 
tense, this gradual process must also be 
demonstrated from the oldest to the youngest 
books. My analyses show that no such process is 
discernible, and no one, not even Cook, has shown 
diachronically such a process.

There are two fundamental problems with the view 
of a suggestion of a grammaticalization process 
in BH:

a) The definition of "tense" is unproblematic. 
But if one points to a verb and say that because 
of the grammaticalization process this is a tense 
and not an aspect, how can we distinguish between 
tense and temporal reference in a single or 
several instances? Without a systematic study of 
all the verbs, whether a particular verb has 
tense or temporal reference anyone's guess.

b) What is aspect? In the linguistic literature, 
aspect has been defined in between 20 and 30 
different ways. So, to postulate a 
grammaticalization process from aspect to tense, 
one must (arbitrarily) choose one definition and 
apply this one to BH. But how can we know that 
this definition fits the BH verb?

The approach using C, E. and R on the other hand, 
completely avoids both problems, because it only 
uses three fundamental parameters, and no 
particular definitions of aspect are necessary.


> It is difficult for me to see how operating with the assumption of
> "uncancellable meaning" can operate in areas of language which face
> grammaticalization. I wrote in my review (pp.131-132):

snip

As mentioned above, I have made research 
regarding grammaticalization, and I have found no 
traces of it.

> Regards,
> David Kummerow.

I see no reason to continue the discussion with 
David Kummerow; we live in two different 
linguistic worlds. But he has made a review of my 
dissertation that reveals that he has not 
understood its basic parameters and arguments. 
And therefore he has misrepresented me in several 
ways and ascribed views to me that I either do 
not have or he has taken views that I have 
completely out of proportion. In order to show a 
bit of that I have continued this exchange of 
E-mails, but I do not want to continue further.


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo