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: James Read <J.Read-2 AT sms.ed.ac.uk>
  • To: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] b-hebrew Uncancellable meaning and Hebrew verbs
  • Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 21:53:34 +0100

Hi Rolf,

for the benefit of the list members can you provide a quick explanation of tense and aspect as defined by your parameters event time, reference time and deictic centre with a couple of example sentences that illustrate the use of the tools?

I'm fairly sure that using this same method and applying it to any modern language we would find that both tense and aspect are cancellable to the verb systems of all languages. The reason I make this observation is that while I concede that there may be an uncancellable meaning which is common to all uses of a verb form I'm pretty sure that language speakers are unaware of it when they use a verb form and are more conscious of the use they wished to express.

James Christian


Quoting Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>:

Dear Karl,

The final word is not said regarding Hebrew grammar and Hebrew verbs.
We must keep in mind that there was no Hebrew grammar in the days of
the Masoretes, and the grammatical suggestions that have been
presented in the 19th, 20th, and 21st century all are built on
induction-and induction can be tricky.

I do not think you should approach Hebrew grammar by asking whether I
am right or wrong. In any case, you will not have a basis for any
answer before you have carefully studied my dissertation and
considered a great part of its examples. What bothers me most in many
studies of Hebrew verbs is the arbitrariness of many of the
conclusions. Things are stated without arguments, and the readers of
grammars and textbooks simply have to believe the statements.

To come to grips with Hebrew grammar, I see two important paths to follow:

1) Consider for yourself whether you want to use a method where you
have to account for a lot of factors at the same time (i.e.,
discourse analysis) or whether you want to study the smallest
possible parts of the language, one at a time (semantic meaning
versus conversational pragmatic implicature).

2) Try to get a clear understanding of the fundamental properties
"deictic center," "event time," and "reference time" and how these
can be applied to Hebrew verbs. To achieve that, I suggest that you
study B. Comrie (1976) "Aspect" and (1985) "Tense". Here you will
find a fundamental introduction that will be of great help. Comrie is
seen as a linguistic authority. However, you should keep in mind that
he has been severely criticized for his confusion of aspect and
Aktionsart, or rather his lack of distinction between aspect and
Aktionsart by numerous linguists. So after you have read Comrie, you
need something by which you can adjust your ideas regarding the
fundamental aspectual properties. This you can do by a careful study
of the dissertation of M. Broman Olsen, that I previously have
referred to. Her discussion of the fundamental properties are
excellent, the best discussion I am aware of, and she points out the
weaknesses of Comrie's discussion in a rather simple way. After
this, you will probably have the right basis for the study of the
Hebrew verb. The best way to learn the basics, as I see it, is first
to read Comrie, and then throw away the 20-30% where he errs, and not
just to Read Broman Olsen without having read Comrie.

There are some tense-less languages in the world, but no languages
that are not concerned with time, past, present, and future. So, you
cannot approach BH by throwing out time altogether. What you should
do is to ascertain what it means that tense is the relationship
between the deictic center and reference time, and that aspect is the
relationship between event time and reference time, and then apply
this to BH.


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo



Rolf:

Right now I cannot say that you are right or that you are wrong.

I question whether or not the Biblical Hebrew verbal conjugation
system had a time element at all. Even your modified aspectual system
still retains a time element. That's what I question. I could be
wrong.

As I previously admitted, before joining this list, I had given very
little thought to Biblical Hebrew grammar, concentrating on lexical
studies.

For example, before Randall Buth joined with his question, I had never
considered the grammar for simple, declarative statements concerning
ongoing events. As far as I have seen so far, he's right that the
Yiqtol is not used for those sentences. However, his conclusion that
the noun/pronoun plus participle is the default construction for those
sentences is belied by the finding that at least one such sentence has
that construction referring to the future and that the Qatal is often
used for present, ongoing events. The Yiqtol seems to be used for
optitative, subjunctive, interrogative and other such uses.

Like you, when I studied Hebrew in class, I was taught that the Hebrew
conjugation system necessarily includes time; whether tense as in
modern Israeli or aspect with its completed, point time action vs.
incompleted, continuing time action. One of the nice things about
being largely self-taught is that I don't have to argue with experts,
rather I can deal with the text directly without that distraction, but
it also means that I could be very wrong.

Thanks again for resending your definitions.

Karl W. Randolph.
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

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





--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page