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: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] b-hebrew Uncancellable meaning and Hebrew verbs
  • Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 16:29:38 +0200

Hi James,

Well, I'd like for you to explain how it may be analysed imperfectively.
As far I take the default construal of wayyo'mer in Gen 12:1 in its
context, event time is prior to the deictic centre, thus past. The
action refers to the whole of the speech event, not some part of it, so
therefore perfective. (God said all of what he said, not part of it.)

Like I said, please explain how this verb could possibly be taken as
imperfective in its context.

Regards,
David Kummerow.



DK has demonstrated that he still does not understand the basic parameters used by Reichenbach, Comrie, Broman Olsen and myself. Tense is the relationship between reference time and the deictic center, not between event time and the deictic center. This is so because event time can start before the deictic center and continue after it. But OK, I agree that the whole event time in Gen 12:1 is prior to the deictic center. This shows that the reference is past, but not that the WAYYIQTOL is past tense. And there is no way to look inside the verb and know whether the whole or a part is made visible.


But what about I Genesis 41:1-7? In these verses we find 9 WAYYIQTOLs and 6 participles. In all instances event time comes before the deictic center. On the basis of the the definition above, the participles should also be perfective. Is that correct? And what about the hundreds of YIQTOLs where event time is prior the the deictic center? Are they also perfective? If not, how can we know?

In the analysis of the verses below, let us start with )MD (to stand) in verses 1 (participle) and 3 (WAYYIQTOL). To stand is a state, and a state has a beginning and an end; the state holds between beginning and end, and every part of a state is similar to any other part and to the state as a whole. Let us now apply the parameters reference time (R) and event time (E) to the states of the two verses. Please keep in mind that E is the time of an event or state from beginning to end and R is the part of E (small or great) that is is made visible. In verse 1, would the writer signal that the end of the state was reached, i.e., that Pharao *had stood* by the Nile but was no longer standing there? That can hardly be the case. But what about the cows in v. 3? Would the writer signal that their state of standing had reached its end, i.e., that they had stood beside those on the riverbank? I do not think that anyone would say that. Even if one would say that the writer meant to make visible that the cows came up out of the Nile and began to stand beside those on the riverbank, the end of the state is still not reached. So, both in both the state expressed by the participle and by the WAYYIQTOL R intersects E after the beginning and before the end. S, how can this WAYYIQTOL be perfective?

We may also focus on XLM in verses 1 and 5. Pharaoh had a dream, in the first instance expressed by a participle and in the second by a WAYYIQTOL. Is there a semantic difference? Are both perfective? How can we know?

The point I am trying to stress is that because BH is a dead language and there are no informants, in many cases, probably in most, we cannot on the basis of the context know whether a part of an event or state, or the whole event or state is made visible. We must therefore look at those situations that are transparent and where this can clearly be seen. The situations where the relationship between E and R cannot be seen must be interpreted in light of the situations where that can be seen.


Gen. 41:1 When two full years had passed (WAYYIQTOL), Pharaoh had a dream (participle): He was standing (PARTICIPLE) by the Nile,
Gen. 41:2 when out of the river there came up (PARTICIPLE) seven cows, sleek and fat, and they grazed (WAYYIQTOL) among the reeds.
Gen. 41:3 After them, seven other cows, ugly and gaunt, came up (PARTICIPLE) out of the Nile and stood (WAYYIQTOL) beside those on the riverbank.
Gen. 41:4 And the cows that were ugly and gaunt ate up (WAYYIQTOL) the seven sleek, fat cows. Then Pharaoh woke up (WAYYIQTOL).
Gen. 41:5 ΒΆ He fell asleep (WAYYIQTOL) again and had a second dream (WAYYIQTOL): Seven heads of grain, healthy and good, were growing (PARTICIPLE) on a single stalk.
Gen. 41:6 After them, seven other heads of grain sprouted (PARTICIPLE)-thin and scorched by the east wind.
Gen. 41:7 The thin heads of grain swallowed (WAYYIQTOL) up the seven healthy, full heads. Then Pharaoh woke up (WAYYIQTOL); it had been a dream.


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo
From furuli AT online.no Mon Jul 6 10:31:33 2009
Return-Path: <furuli AT online.no>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix, from userid 3002)
id 1DF0A4C012; Mon, 6 Jul 2009 10:31:33 -0400 (EDT)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on malecky
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled
version=3.2.3
Received: from mail45.e.nsc.no (mail45.e.nsc.no [193.213.115.45])
by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02FE54C010
for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Mon, 6 Jul 2009 10:31:31 -0400
(EDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.36] (ti200710a080-2018.bb.online.no
[85.164.135.228])
(authenticated bits=0)
by mail45.nsc.no (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n66EVScs015709
for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Mon, 6 Jul 2009 16:31:29 +0200
(MEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <a06240816c677baeb42b8@[192.168.1.36]>
In-Reply-To: <200907061553.52541.kimmo.huovila AT kolumbus.fi>
References: <mailman.0.1246123210.16969.b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
<BLU0-SMTP93C6D0E443059B066A0E39C12B0 AT phx.gbl>
<20090706130934.s9f23pd6as0cw44w AT www.sms.ed.ac.uk>
<200907061553.52541.kimmo.huovila AT kolumbus.fi>
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 16:31:26 +0200
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
From: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] b-hebrew Uncancellable meaning and Hebrew verbs
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Biblical Hebrew Forum <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
<mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
<mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:31:33 -0000

Dear Kimmo,

Good to see you on b-hebrew. Can you give the exact bibliography?

Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo



Just in case someone wants to read on this issue, the whole question of
categorization by necessary and sufficient conditions (which bears
at least some
similarity to uncancellable semantics) versus categorization by prototype has
been thoroughly examined by John Taylor in his Linguistic Categorization.

Kimmo Huovila
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page