Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] wayyomer as imperfective aspect

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] wayyomer as imperfective aspect
  • Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 17:45:28 +0200

Dear list-members,

I have some comments to the challenge below. I discuss WAYYIQTOL as a form rather than particular verbs. And I give no examples to avoid fruitless discussions like the discussions regarding "plod". The important thing in BH is to see the big picture and the reasons why different scholars paint this picture differently. Hairsplitting discussions of minute details that some list-members are so fond of, tend to cloud the picture rather than illuminating it. I do intend to continue this discussion, but I hope that some list-members may have some benefit from it. Examples showing that the WAYYIQTOLS and YIQTOLs of the verbs of speech )MR and DBR have the same meaning are found in examples 22- 34 on pp. 208-217 in my dissertation.



I'd like to repeat my question since you may have missed it from my
earlier post. Can you demonstrate for us how wayyomer in BH is
imperfective in aspect?



TWO OR FOUR CONJUGATIONS - MORPHOLOGY AND HISTORY

1. In Ugaritic, Phoenician, and Aramaic we find only two different conjugations, the prefix forms and the suffix forms (I leave Akkadian alone at this stage.)

2. In BH we also find the prefix forms and suffix forms. But a little more than half of the prefix forms and between a third and a fourth of the suffix forms have a prefixed WAW. So the question is whether these prefixed WAWs signal two extra conjugations, or whether they only are prefixed conjunctions,

3. On the basis of the DSS we can give no answer because of lack of vowels (patah patrticularly) and gemination, Origen in his Hexapla makes no distinction between the so-called WEYIQTOL and WAYYIQTOL. The first time we can see a difference is in the Masoretic text.

4. The WAY- element of WAYYIQTOL need not be a semantic element, because the geminiation and different stress can be explained on the basis of the Masoretic phonetic rules of stress and vowel shift, as well as the resitation of the text in the synagogue. The same is true with the WE-element if WEQATAL and the particular stress shift in some persons. So there is nothing in the use for verb forms, as seen in the manuscripts before the Masoretes, or in the morphology of the forms (including vowels and accents) that demand that WAYYIQTOL is a conjugation different from YIQTOL, or that WEQATAL is different from QATAL.


LINGUISTIC APPROACHES THAT CAN ILLUMINATE THE ISSUE

5. Different approaches have been used: Diachronic approaches trying to follow the evolution of verb forms in the Semitic languages were popular in the first part of the 20th century. We have also seen approaches based on the assumption that BH is a tense language or an aspect language. And studies of grammaticalization processes have also been performed. The problems I see in all these studies are all the assumptions and axioms that are used, and there are few controls because of lack of distinction between semantic and pragmatic factors,

6. A much better approach, in my view, is to study the language without any preconceived ideas regarding the BH verb forms. To achieve that, one needs a set of fundamental parameters that can be applied to any living or dead language, and by the help of which one can eliminate some supposed properties and argue in favor of others. As I have mentioned several times, I have used the parameters deictic center, event time, and reference time. By the help of these parameters one can demonstrate that a language has or do not have tenses; one can demonstrate whether a language has aspects, and if so, the properties of these aspects. And one can find out (if a diachronic study is possible) whether there is an unfinished grammaticalization process in the verbal system.

7. In order to use as few assumptions as possible and get results that can be tested by others, it is necessary to distinguish between semantic and pragmatic factors. For example, in order to find whether BH has tenses, it is necessary to accept that there is an unchangeable semantic relationship between the deictic center (C) and reference time (R). When the tense is past, R always comes before C, and when the tense is future, R always comes after C. This semantic relationship is the universal understanding of tense, even when scholars dot not use C and R. This is not to say that when R. comes before C, it is evidence of past *tense,* because this can also happen in purely aspectual languages. Then we only speak of "past reference". In addition to the semantic difference between R and C when we speak of tense, we must also see uniformity of verb forms and temporal references. If BH had tenses, we would expect that the same verb form (conjugation) had only one temporal reference, except in cases that can be linguistically explained. This is not the case of BH, and the conclusion must be that BH does not have tenses. (As a basis for the conclusion, an unfinished grammaticalization process has been excluded on the basis of the evidence.)


THE WAYYIQTOL FORM

8. As already mentioned, there is no morphological difference between YIQTOL and WAYYIQTOL(if the WAY- element is a conjunction). So, a semantic difference between the two cannot be concluded on the basis of morphology. And please note that here we have a good example of how other scholars use the distinction semantic/pragmatic. From the Middle Ages it has been claimed that the distinction between YIQTOL and WAYYIQTOL is not only pragmatic (use/function), but it is semantic. It has been believed that the WAYYIQTOL somehow reverses the meaning of YIQTOL. Some have said that YIQTOL is futue tense, and WAYYIQTOL is the reverse, namely, past tense. Others have said that YIQTOL is the imperfective aspect and WAYYIQTOL the perfective one. This is nothing but a *semantic* distinction!

9. Apart from the difference in WAY- and stress, one basic reason scholars have for viewing WAYYIQTOL as different from YIQTOL, is that WAYYIQTOL occurs extensively in narratives with past reference and the YIQTOL occurs often in future contexts. Some would see a tense difference, and others would see an aspectual difference. Those who see an aspectual difference, cannot fathom that WAYYIQTOL can be imperfective, because it so often has past reference.

10. One problem with many modern studies of BH is that our modern experience with languages are projected into BH. For example, the narrative form in aspectual languages is the perfective aspect and not the imperfective one. A look at Ugaritic may show the futility of projecting this into Semitic languages. A few semesters ago, in class we read the whole sagas of Danil and Aqhat, and Kirta, and particularly in connection with Kirta some students were stunned because of the use of verbs. First we have a long account of what Kirta should do and what would happen, where the verbs (mostly prefix forms, but also some suffix forms) have future reference. Then we have exactly the same account with past reference -it had happened- almost completely similar with account in the future and with the same verbs, but now with past reference. Obviously, the forms have the same meaning in both cases, yet they have completely different temporal references. If YIQTOL and WAYYIQTOL both have the same meaning, the Ugaritic examples would be an interesting counterpart to the Hebrew use: the YIQTOLs are often used with future reference, but the same forms with prefixed conjunctions (WAYYIQTOL) are also used with past reference. The difference being the extensive use of the conjunction in Hebrew narrative. However, Kirta is not a narrative account, although it has some narrative traits. In any case, the Ugaritic examples show that the argument that the WAYYIQTOL must be different from YIQTOL because of the different uses is futile. In Phoenician the narrative form is the infinitive absolute, with an extensive use of prefixed WAWs, and in the Aramaic of Daniel, the prefix form (somttimes the same root) is used both with future and past reference. So the arguments in favor of WAYYIQTOL being different from YIQTOL on the basis of morphology and use, are weak indeed, if we compare them with other old Semitic languages. And, to the best of my knowledge, it is unprecedented in any language that a particular verb form (here a prefix form) by the addition of a conjunction (or another element that no one has been able to identify) should signal the reverse meaning of the form without the conjunction/element!

11. By the help of event time and reference time the BH aspect can be described or defined. And the BH aspects are both similar and different compared with the English aspects. An analysis of those WAYYIQTOLs where the relationship between E and R is visible, shows that WAYYIQTOL has imperfetive traits just as the YIQTOLs: Some of the characteristics are:

a) The form can have past, pre-past, present, present completed, and future reference. It can also be modal.

b) In many instances the reference time of two or more forms coincide, so they are not consecutive.

c) In many instances it can be shown that the WAY- element is not more than an ordinary conjunction.

d) The form expresses conative events (attempted but not carried through)

e) The form expresses ingressive events (beginning and first part of the action being made visible).

f) The form can be resultative (the resultative state being made visible).

g) The form can be intersected by another verb ("When Moses was reading the law (WAYYIQTOL), Joshua entered the tent.")

h) One WAYYIQTOL can be modified by another WAYYIQTOL.


12. As Kevin Riley wrote, the last word regarding BH verbs has not been said. I do not claim that my conclusions are the truth and nothing but the truth. But both my approach and my conclusions are very different from other studies. Because of this they deserve to be carefully scrutinized. And the most important step in that direction is to get a full understanding of the meaning and use of the basic parameters. This is particularly important in order to understand the differences between English and BH aspects that I outline. It is not fair to evaluate my approach in the light of different other approaches, such as discourse theories, prototype theories and other theories. Such theories could be applied in other studies, and these studies be evaluated in their own right. So my approach should also be evaluated in its own right, whether I have been faithful to my own principles, and whether my results follow because of my data and the application of them. When considering the WAYYIQTOL form, which is almost universally believed to be different from the YIQTOL, it is important to try to put away one's biases (we all have such), and in a balanced way consider the material. Two important questions can be asked, 1) What are the reasons why WAYYIQTOL *must* be different from YIQTOL? Are these reasons conclusive?, and 2) Does WAYYIQTOL really have imperfective characteristics? And if so, why should we not accept that it has the same imperfective aspect as YIQTOL.


Addition: When I began to study Hebrew, and even up to the present, the Ugaritic use of verbs has been used to to bolster the distinction between WAYYIQTOL and YIQTOL. It has been argued that WAYYIQTOL came from a short Ugaritic preterit (YAQTUL) in contrast with the longer (YAQTULU). This is to turn the evidence upside down, as Kirta and Danil and Aqhat shows. An interesting article discussing the Ugaritic verb occurs in "Biblical Hebrew in its Northwest Semitic setting : typological and historical perspectives / edited by Steven E. Fassberg and Avi Hurvitz.


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo














Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page