Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] no to 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] no to aspect
  • Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 17:16:00 +0100


Dear Bryant,

No, all the prefix forms are imperfective in all genres, and all the suffix forms are perfective in all genres.


Some persons believe that the meaning of the verb forms in Akkadian and Hebrew are different in prose and in poetry. One reason for such claims is that there are so many examples of verbs that violate the traditional understanding of the verbal systems. But such claims are really strange, because we do not see this in the modern languages that we know. An English perfect and preterit have exactly the same meaning in poetry as in prose. True, in poetic texts the author sometimes uses a verb in a special way to create a certain affect. But the meaning of the form is still the same.

Some say that YIQTOLs in old Psalms represent past tense, but the meaning of YIQTOL changed in younger texts. This is a more promising approach, because we know that that the meaning of forms may change through time. However, the argument is circular, because there is no certain way to date a Psalm or another text on linguistic grounds. When a Psalm has some YIQTOLs with past reference, the Psalm is old, and therefore the YIQTOLs of old Psalms are preterits, is the circular argument.

An argument used bolster the view of old preterit YIQTOLs, is that is that the Ugaritic short form YAQTUL is a preterit, and the Hebrew preterit YIQTOL evolved from this form. Interestingly, Ugaritic shows exactly the opposite: there are no tenses at all in Ugaritic. One of the Ugaritic sagas is that of Kirta (or, Keret). In this text, we first learn of acts that Kirta will do in the future and situations that will occur in the future. The verbs, therefore, have future reference. Then, the same acts and situations are described in the past, with exactly the same roots and verb form (with almost no exceptions). When so many verb forms have future reference in one context and past reference in another, tense is nonexistent. Therefore, the very foundation for the Hebrew old preterit YIQTOL is nonexistent.

In my doctoral work where all the finite and infinite verbs of the Tanakh were studied, one chapter is a diachronic study of the verb forms. The conclusion is that in some books that are viewed as younger than the others, there are small changes in the *use* of verb forms. But clearly, the meaning of the forms have not changed. I also studied all the verbs of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and even here I was not able to find any changes in the meaning of the prefix forms or suffix forms. Another chapter deals with prose versus poetry. Again the conclusion was that there is no difference in the meaning of any of the forms. BTW, I found that the claim of Kutcher and others that other forms tend to be used instead of WAYYIQTOLs in the younger books of the Tanakh, is wrong. The verbal statistics contradict this claim. So, no change in meaning can be found.


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli




Dear Rolf,

Okay, you have described what the QTL and YQTL are in narrative, but is there
any difference in the poetic, prophetic and apocalyptic genres?

Rev. Bryant J. Williams III
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rolf Furuli" <furuli AT online.no>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 6:38 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] no to aspect


Dear Isaac,

We may use verbs in Genesis , chapters 1 and 2, as examples.

Those who accept that Classical Hebrew is an aspectual language,
accepts that YIQTOL is imperfective and QATAL is perfective.

The QATAL of 1:1 and 2:5 have past reference, and the two YIQTOLs of
2:5 and the one of 2:6 have past reference as well.

1:1 : BR) - perfective

2:5: HYH and ZMH - imperfective
2:5 M+R - perfective

2:6 (LH - imperfective

In addition to YIQTOL, I analyze WAYYIQTOL and WEYIQTIL as
imperfective, and WEQATAL as perfective.

Both the QATAL of 1:2 and the YIQTOL of 2:6 have past reference.

1:2 )MR - imperfective

2:6 $QH - perfective
>
The conclusion of the comments above is that Classical Hebrew has
> only two conjugations. All prefix forms, with and without the
conjunction WAW, are imperfective, and the suffix forms, with and
without WAW, are perfective. Tense (=grammaticalized location in
time) is nonexistent,


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli







Those who view Classical Hebrew as an aspectual language


>Can we have examples for this as they appear the Hebrew bible?
>
>Isaac Fried, Boston University
>
>On Feb 3, 2011, at 2:27 AM, Rolf Furuli wrote:
>
>>perfective and imperfective aspect respectively?
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew


--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.3/696 - Release Date: 02/21/2007
3:19 PM



_______________________________________________
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