Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] How does biblical Hebrew describe a past event?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] How does biblical Hebrew describe a past event?
  • Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:13:58 +0200

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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page