Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] BH verbal system

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] BH verbal system
  • Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 17:29:37 +0100

Dear Joseph,

I have Hebrew grammar of Schneider (In German) in my library, and I have a short discussion of it in my doctoral dissertation. Both Schneider and Alviero Niccacci base their works on Harald Weinrich (1974) "Tempus: Besprochende und Erzählte Welt." Weinrich admits that his analysis of the verbal systems of languages on the basis of discourse analysis is "unassailable," that is, the conclusions cannot be tested. So why should we believe them?

In addition to this very grave weakness, I would say that Schneider's work to some extent is tautological and to some extent is circular. Further, it uses grammatical terms in a sub-standard way-if we judge his work from the point of view of elementary linguistics!

One examples of a tautological conclusion is as follows: "The primary tense of the narrative is WAYYIQTOL." What is the reason for the conclusion? Because the WAYYIQTOL form so often is used in the narrative texts. This is similar to saying: "John is the father of Charles, and Charles is the son of John." Hebrew writers used such statements as stylistic devices, but they should not occur in modern grammars, because they explain nothing.

It is a fundamental linguistic truth that verbs used in narratives have past reference. Thus, the past reference need not be a semantic part of the *verb form*, the past reference may be pragmatic; its basis being the context. In Phoenician, infinitive absolute is used as the narrative verb, but it is not a past tense. In In the Ugaritic saga of Kirta (Keret) prefix forms (YAQTUL) are used with past reference as narrative verbs. Then, exactly the same account with exactly the same prefix forms (a few exceptions, though) are used with future reference. Therefore, the USE of WAYYIQTOL in Hebrew narratives does not tell us anything about whether it is a tense (that past tense is a semantic part of the very form). To the contrary, I have a list of about one thousand WAYYIQTOLs with non-past reference. And they show that WAYYIQTOL is not a tense at all. The term "tense" is defined as "a grammaticalized location in time." Schneider does not distinguish between "past tense" (semantic past) and past reference (pragmatic past), and this is linguistically speaking sub-standard.

The tautological nature of an analysis of the Hebrew verbal system based on discourse analysis, that is, on the difference between narrative and discourse, is less problematic that the circularity. The verb forms YIQTOL, WAYYIQTOL, and QATAL have been assigned different functions in narrative and discourse. Now, it is often easy to identify narrative texts, but in many contexts it is not easy on the basis of the context to distinguish between narrative and discourse, between foreground and background information etc. But this is often done on the basis of the theory. This means that when a verb form is assigned to represent a certain kind of communication, the clause or context where it occurs is viewed as representing such a communication (for example foreground or background) because the verb form occurs there. So the nature of the clause(s) is defined on the basis of the verb that occurs, and the occurrence of the verb form there confirms the correctness of the linguistic theory. This is circular reasoning! We find this in Schneider, Niccacci, and in numerous discussions regarding discourse analysis that have occurred on this list through the years.

In the natural sciences the smallest parts of particular objects are studied. On this basis, balanced conclusions can be drawn. A basic principle of the Philosophy of Science is that the certainty of a scientific conclusion is inversely proportional with the number of components that must be accounted for at the same time. And please keep in mind that Schenider and others who use discourse analysis, do not study single words, nor single sentences (although this can also be done). But they study chunks of text above the sentence level. So they must deal with scores of factors at the same time. No certain conclusions can be drawn on the basis of so many factors. Therefore, a preconceived theoretical system is made beforehand, and the text is studied in the light of this system. Thus, the conclusions cannot be tested.

I have mentioned it in several posts on this list, and I mention it again. There is one basic linguistic principle that is almost completely ignored in studies of Semitic verbs. This is the very opposite principle of discourse analysis. First semester students of linguistics learn it, and if they do not use it in their works, they will not get their exams-yet many Semitic scholars ignore it. The principle is that in any study of the verbal system we must distinguish between "semantic meaning" (meaning that is an uncancellable part of the verb form) and "conversational pragmatic implicature" (meaning that is caused by the context and is cancellable). On the basis of this distinction, a very simple test can be made to find out whether tense is a part of the Hebrew verbal system: If a verb form is a tense, it will have the same temporal reference in any context, save special cases that can be explained, such as hypothetical conditional clauses. I have made this test of all verbs of the Tanakh, and I have found that no verb form has a uniform temporal reference. Therefore, "tense" (grammaticalized location in time) is non-existent in Classical Hebrew. Schneider has not made such a test, but he has just assumed that tense is existent.

The ancient Semitic languages are typically aspect languages. This is true with Hebrew and Aramaic. However, modern Hebrew and modern Aramaic are tense languages, and at least in the case of Aramaic and Syriac (which is a part of the Aramaic family) there has been a gradual grammaticalization process from aspect to tense. But aspects die hard! It is assumed in grammars and textbooks that Syriac (witnessed from the 1st century C.E.) is a tense language. But clearly, the grammaticalization was not completed at the time of the Peshitta translation. In my Syriac class today, we studied the last 15 verses of Matthew, chapter 24. Syriac QATAL is normally used with past reference, but in Matthew 24:33 the QATAL form of the verb XZ) (to see) is used with future reference. Similar uses of QATAL are found elsewhere as well, and this shows that Syriac QATAL is not a tense.

I do not say that students of Hebrew students should not use discourse analysis. A small or great measure of discourse analysis is necessary in any linguistic study. But we should keep in mind what discourse analysis can do and cannot do. In my view, to understand the nature of the verbal system of Classical Hebrew it is completely useless.



Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo














Dear List Members

I want to invite your evaluation of the BH verbal system as proposed by Wolfgang Schneider and summarized below by John Sailhamer in his class lecture notes.

"In the Hebrew verb system, tense is used to signal the orientation of the speaker to the listener...In Hebrew the choice of tense depends on whether the action is part of a conversation or part of a narration....In Hebrew there are two sets of tense systems: a primary tense and a secondary tense. The primary tense is used to express the main action of a passage in the Hebrew Bible. The primary tense has only two forms.
The secondary tense has only one form. It is used to express actions which lie in the background of those actions expressed in the primary tenses. In the Hebrew Bible, these two tense systems have merged to form one complete system of tenses."

He then identifies the primary tense for narrative as the wayyiqtol and the primary tense for discourse as the yiqtol. The qatal is secondary in both narrative and discourse. I can provide more details if anyone is interested, or even thinks this is a valid approach to the verb. It certainly is radically different from time and aspect models. It seeks to ask not "What type of action does a verb represent?", but rather What type of communication does the verb represent?".

Your thoughts?
Joseph Justiss
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft's powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390706/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
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