Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] On the history of Hebrew YIQTOL and the Hebrew verb

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] On the history of Hebrew YIQTOL and the Hebrew verb
  • Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 09:00:08 +0100

Dear Bryant,


The basic problem I see with this article is the lack of clear definitions of the terms used. The article speaks of "the parameters of time and aspect" and of "imperfective" and "perfective" aspects. It is said that " In Hebrew yiqtol refers to future contexts without specifying the aspect, least of all imperfective." This implies that each aspect has a meaning, and the meaning of the imperfective aspect does not fit future references.

But the meaning (definition) of the imperfective aspect is not stated. Therefore, it is impossible for the reader to understand the argument. An attempt to explain the perfective aspect is seen; it is explained as "complete/whole." But what does that mean? An example with BW) is used. But does not the *lexical* meaning of this verb refer to a "complete/whole" situation? Please consider the examples below. Examples 1) and 5) have past reference, 3) and 4) have future reference, and the reference of 3) is present completed. These examples, both with YIQTOL and QATAL, show that the "complete/whole" action expressed by BW) is a lexical property and not one of aspect.

1) Genesis 6:4 "the sons of god came (YIQTOL) to the daughters of man."

2) Genesis 16:8 " from where have you come (QATAL)?"

3) Jeremiah 51:3 "destroyers will come (YIQTOL) to her."

4) Ezekiel 21:30 "your day will come (QATAL)."

5) Ezekiel 20:1 "some of the elders of Israel came (QATAL)."

We often see in discussions of Hebrew verbs that aspect is confused with lexical meaning or Aktionsart. Therefore, it is important to give clear definitions of the terms. Aspect is given different definitions in the literature, often psychological definitions. A person discussing aspect chooses one of the definitions, and if other persons use different definitions, confusion arise. The only way to avoid this "random choice of an aspect definition" of which I am aware, is to use the basic parameters "deictic center," "reference time" and "event time." By using these univesal parameters, one needs not to start with a particular aspect definition, but the meaning of each aspect will emerge after one has worked with the text for a long period.


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli




Dear List,

I ran across the article below several months ago. But, do to the recent threads
on this list regarding the Hebrew verb, etc., I thought you may want to read the
review of an article by Randall Buth. See Below. Considering the recent threads
it would probably be good to review the article with the other mentioned
recently by Bowling and Tsunamara.


snip


More background comments from me: probably the majority of
materials written for beginner and scholar alike call the yiqtol an 'imperfect'
or an 'imperfective'. Those labels have a potential to mislead a person in BH
future contexts. In future contexts the overwhelming majority of references are
to situations that are being conceived of perfectively [!] as 'complete/whole',
howbeit in a future time. If someone says 'maHar yavo ' ÓÁ¯ÝÈ·Âý "tomorrow he
will come", the default reference is not to "he will be in the process of
coming", the default implication is that the person 'will arrive tomorrow'. In
other words, in Hebrew the yiqtol refers to future contexts without specifying
the aspect, least of all imperfective! As Andrason writes, future yiqtol "is an
aspectually neutral tense" (Andrason, p. 53). This is exactly the opposite to
what some students and too many scholars assume, based on the name 'imperfect'.
Many scholars have avoided this pitfall. The Jouon Muraoka reference grammar is
based on Jouon 1923 where he intuitively called the yiqtol a 'future'. The
problem, though, is that the yiqtol is also a past imperfective. Hence, we
encounter the need to recognize a fusion taking place with the parameters of
time and aspect in the Hebrew yiqtol. Mood interacts with yiqtol too, but it is
more complicated to define and will not be highlighted in this brief discussion
and review. See "The Hebrew Verb: A Short Syntax" for further integration of
yiqtol with mood and the Hebrew volitional system.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page