Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Bryant J. Williams III" <bjwvmw AT com-pair.net>]

Dear List,
Recently we had a discussion over Aspect versus Tense, etc. The article below 
copied verbatim from John Hobbin's blog is very interesting:
http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com/ancient_hebrew_poetry/2009/07/a-tenseprominent-analysis-of-the-biblical-hebrew-verbal-system.html#more

For those of us who are not as versed (pun intended) in linguistic theory, 
would those of you on this who are please comment on the article by Matthew 
Anstey and the comments of John Hobbins?

Rev. Bryant J. Williams III
A Tense-Prominent Analysis of the Biblical Hebrew Verbal System
Matthew Anstey kindly sent me a copy of his programmatic essay, hot off the 
press, entitled “The Biblical Hebrew qatal verb: a functional discourse 
grammar analysis,” Linguistics 47 (2009) 824-844. The essay is lucid, fully 
engages the field of linguistics, and is respectful of perspectives at odds 
with its own - trademark qualities of Anstey’s scholarship. To whet your 
appetite, I will quote his key conclusions, add a few titles to his status 
quaestionis summary, and intersperse observations of my own. 

Anstey offers a tense-prominent analysis of the verbal system of Biblical 
Hebrew. Here is the outline of his essay: 1. Introduction (825-26); 2. The BH 
verbal system (826-34); 3. An FDG analysis of QV [a functional discourse 
grammar analysis of BH qatal] (835-39); 4. Conclusion (840-41); Footnotes 
(841-44). In this post, I take a look at Part 2.1-2.2.2.

2.                The BH verbal system

2.1              Introduction

2.2              The multifunctionality of qatal

2.2.1           Narration

2.2.2           Narratives

2.2.3           Conditional and hypothetical clauses

2.2.4           Polite QVs

2.2.5           Proverbial clauses

2.2.6           Future QVs

2.3              Summary of QV functions

Anstey adopts the position that BH qatal (827) “has Past as its core meaning, 
for the following straightforward reason: in the range of functions discussed 
below, Past is clearly the default interpretation in narrative and reported 
speech. The other uses occur in much more restricted constructions and 
contexts” (827). 

The wayyiqtol and yiqtol, according to Anstey, are not as problematic (827):

Of the three finite verbs, QV [qatal] has the most puzzling range of 
functions. In contrast, NV is analyzed almost unanimously as a simple Past 
Verb, and the Nonpast yiqtol, although also multifunctional, has a range of 
functions that is typical of nonpast forms, namely, various imperfective and 
modal nuances, as well as habitual and generic uses.

[I’m not sure that the range of functions of qatal in ancient Hebrew is any 
more puzzling than, say, those of the aorist in ancient Greek. But then, I 
understand the range of functions of qatal to be less scattered than Anstey 
does (see below). My other reaction to the quoted paragraph is that one needs 
to think in terms of four principal finite verbs in ancient Hebrew, with the 
inclusion of the weqatal pattern.]

Anstey distinguishes between narrative [“written speech”] and narration 
[“direct speech”]. Key graph (827):

In narration, which in BH is direct speech in written narrative, QV [qatal] 
typically functions in Main and Complement Clauses as a past or present 
perfect tense for Nonstative Verbs and as a present tense for Stative Verbs. 
The choice between past or present perfect in translation is often arbitrary. 
In Relative Clauses, QVs function as anterior, relative to the tense of the 
main Verb (Zevit 1998).

[As Anstey himself makes clear, his “Stative Verb” category does not 
reference morphology. Anstey makes a functional distinction when he parses 
ידעתי in ידעתי כי נתן יהוה לכם את־הארץ ‘I know יהוה has given the land to 
you’ (Josh 2:9) as a Present Stative. 

The distinction between states and occurrences is not always clear-cut 
extra-linguistically, in objective reality. Linguistically, it only gets 
worse. The way situations are conceptualized and their properties 
morphologized and/or grammaticalized with particular verbs is, almost by 
definition, systematic in part only. For example, an important class of 
stative verbs in a number of languages is that of cognition, emotion, and 
attitude. In ancient Hebrew, some members of this class, like אהב and שנא, 
are marked morphologically (in some, not all forms); other members, ידע 
included, are not. But ידע is marked as a stative grammatically, I would 
argue, when it occurs in the qatal with imperfective meaning (as in the above 
example, Josh 2:9), just as similar verbs in English occur in the simple 
present with imperfective meaning: “I believe he took a wrong turn;” “She 
knows where her son is.” “She knows” is grammatically marked by deployment of 
the simple present such that it refers to a state with a past, present, and 
imperfective component. 

If a past occurrence were in view, it would be rendered as follows: “She knew 
where her son was.” The example shows that verbs of this class can also be 
used to refer to occurrences. 

‘Stance’ or ‘position’ verbs are also dual use. Statively, again expressed 
with a simple present: “The temple stands in the valley below.” If a ‘stance’ 
verb is used to refer to an occurrence, a progressive is preferred: “He is 
standing outside.” 

Still, the conceptual distinction between states and occurrences is easily 
muddled, at least for those whose first language is English, because states 
in English are sometimes grammaticalized with a simple present but often 
construed as an occurrence and grammaticalized with a present perfect. 

A present perfect grammaticalization is not available in ancient Hebrew. 
Rather, BH qatal, like the aorist in ancient Greek, expresses either past 
tense relative to a particular point of reference or omnitemporality (of more 
than one kind, states included). BH qatal maps onto English in terms of a 
variety of past tenses, the simple present for states, and a variety of modal 
expressions for (in the non-technical sense) omnitemporality in conditions. 
In the following examples, the qatals (translation equivalents italicized) 
are not (1) simple Past Verbs (in Anstey’s terminology), but (2) relative 
past tenses or (3) “omnitemporals” (statives). However, the distinction 
between (1)-(3) is etic rather than emic, in my opinion, with respect to 
ancient Hebrew. Emically, qatal is always and simply a past tense with 
respect to a particular point of reference.

הַדְרִיכֵנִי בִּנְתִיב מִצְוֹתֶיךָ

כִּי־בֹו חָפָצְתִּי 

Lead me in the path of your commands,
for therein I delight. (Ps 119:35)

וְאֶעֱנֶה חֹרְפִי דָבָר

כִּי־בָטַחְתִּי בִּדְבָרֶךָ

And I will answer my taunter with a word,
for I trust in your word. (Ps 119:42)

גַּל מֵעָלַי חֶרְפָּה וָבוּז

כִּי עֵדֹתֶיךָ נָצָרְתִּי

גַּם יָשְׁבוּ שָׂרִים בִּי נִדְבָּרוּ

עַבְדְּךָ יָשִׂיחַ בְּחֻקֶּיךָ

Roll away from (their position) over me taunt and abuse,
for your precepts I keep.
Princes meet [lit., sit] and are outspoken against me;
your servant will reiterate your rulings. (Ps 119:22-23)

טָפְלוּ עָלַי שֶׁקֶר זֵדִים

אֲנִי בְּכָל־לֵב אֶצֹּר פִּקּוּדֶיךָ

טָפַשׁ כַּחֵלֶב לִבָּם

אֲנִי תּוֹרָתְךָ שִׁעֲשָׁעְתִּי

The arrogant smear me with lies;
I on my part will wholeheartedly keep your decrees.
Their heart is thick like fat;
I on my part take pleasure in your direction. (Ps 119:70-71)

יְבֹאוּנִי רַחֲמֶיךָ וְאֶחְיֶה

כִּי־תוֹרָתְךָ שַׁעֲשֻׁעָי

May your mercies reach me, and I live,
for your direction is my source of pleasure. (Ps 119:77)

יְרֵאֶיךָ יִרְאוּנִי וְיִשְׂמָחוּ

כִּי לִדְבָרְךָ יִחָלְתִּי

Those who fear you see me and rejoice
that I place my hope in your word. (Ps 119:74)

Note how the כי complementizer consistently introduces a qatal.]

Anstey remarks as follows about narrative (“written speech”): “Unlike [oral] 
narration, the basic past tense verb of [written] narrative is the NV 
[wayyiqtol]” (829). NVs dominate written narrative and “indicate move 
continuations,” whereas “QVs in narrative primarily indicate move 
transitions, that is, the beginning and end of paragraphs (Heller 2004)” 
(830). He also notes: “in Main Declarative Clauses, BH signals argument focus 
by fronting (van der Merwe and Talstra 2002-2003), again excluding NV from 
initial position” (830).

[That might be restated a little more neutrally as follows: wayyiqtols are 
the workhorse of narrative in ancient Hebrew; qatals serve to open, close, 
and summarize narrative units; more generally, to topicalize or change focus. 

The above restatement is close to Anstey’s concluding overview of “Functions 
of QV in Narrative”: “start, end, summary, topicalisation, focus” (834). ]

One of the absolute strengths of Anstey’s scholarship is his penchant for 
formulating testable hypotheses. A key example (832):

Although QVs [qatals] appear in [written] narrative and NVs (wayyiqtols] 
appear in [oral] narration (Example 3), there are no examples of narratives 
dominated by QVs, even though QVs dominate most narrations. And narration 
never begins with a NV, even in cases where it is dominated by NVs.

[The statement “QVs dominate most [oral] narrations” is testable. Is it true? 
If one compares like with like, that is, examples of oral narration in 
written BH  with examples of written BH narrative pure and simple of about 
the same length and about the same degree of plot development, the 
distinction between oral and written narrative, I think, breaks down. The 
long oral narrations contained in Pss 78, 105, 106, for example, are 
dominated by wayyiqtols, even if yiqtols which function no differently than 
wayyiqtols occur in Ps 78. Jotham’s elaborate parable in Judg 9:8-15, another 
example of oral narration, is also dominated by wayyiqtols. A further set of 
oral narrations which to my mind suggest that wayyiqtol is just as connatural 
to oral narration as to written narrative insofar as move continuations are 
substantial to the telling of a past event is contained in Job 1:14-19.]

To be continued.

Bibliography

Christo H. J. van der Merwe and Eep Talstra, “Biblical Hebrew Word Order: The 
Interface of Information Structure and Formal Features,” ZAH 15/16 
(2002-2003) 68-107; Ziony Zevit, The Anterior Construction in Classical 
Hebrew (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998)