Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] qatal - yiqtol

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] qatal - yiqtol
  • Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 11:00:27 +0100

Dear Nir,

I got the impression that you rejected aspect in Hebrew, and I regret than this was a wrong impression. Thank you for this clarification. Your remarks are in no way offensive. This is a very long post, and I am now approaching the end of this thread.


I define aspect in the following way (without using the technical terms "event time" and "reference time":

English aspect:

The imperfective aspect (expressed by the present participle) make visible action in progress. Neither the beginning nor the end of the action is made visible.
The perfective aspect (expressed by the perfect) make visible completed actions. Neither the beginning nor the action in progress is made visible.


Hebrew aspect:

The imperfective aspect (expressed by YIQTOL, WAYYIQTOL, AND WEYIQTOL) is a close-up view of a small section of the event where the progressive action is made visible. The perfective aspect (expressed by QATAL and WEQATAL) is a view, as if from some distance, of a part of, or of the whole event, where the progressive action is not made visible.

This means that the imperfective aspect can express:

1) Conative situations (attempts not carried through).

2) ingressive situations (the beginning and a small part of progressive action is made visible).

3) Progressive situations (the action continues).

4) Egressive situations (progressive actions immediately before the end is made visible).

5) Resultative situations (the end of the action is reached, and the resultant action is made visible).

6) One action/state inside a continuing action/state.



The perfective aspect can express:

1) Ingressive actions in states (the entrance into the state).

2) Constative situations (a greater part of the event is made visible).

3) Constative situations (the whole event with beginning and end is made visible).

4) Perfect (the end is made visible).


Before I discuss Genesis 1:10, I will make some comments and use some examples. In a recent post, Randall used the expression, "a better masking of a perfective movement verb." Here Randall makes a very important point. In prose texts, the temporal reference of the verbs are rather easy to find, but in poetry the temporal reference can be difficult to find. Perhaps the temporal reference is as much as 70 -80% of the clauses in the Tanakh rather easily can be found; in these cases the temporal reference is not masked. Because aspect is a subjective portrayal of an objective event (I think Randall agrees with this description), it is much more difficult to see the true nature of the aspect of a clause. I estimate that in less than 5 % of the 49,000 finite verbs of the Tanakh can we see the nature of the aspect quite clearly, or clearly. In the other instances the nature of the aspect is masked.

The Hebrew grammarians from the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries have all made the fundamental error of overlooking two basic linguistic facts, 1) there is a difference between temporal reference and tense, and 2) In most passages we cannot see the real nature of the aspect. What has been done, is to force our understanding of modern languages, such as English, upon Classical Hebrew. This has been done by assuming that because narrative in most cases in modern aspectual languages is expressed by perfective aspects, this must be true in Hebrew as well. Therefore, WAYYIQTOL must be perfective. And further, the English definition of aspect, completed/uncompleted has been applied to the Hebrew verbs. Others have concluded that because so many WAYYIQTOLs have past reference, WAYYIQTOL represent past tense. This has led to linguistic anarchy-seemingly, the Hebrew verbal system does not fit anything.

The only way to remedy this situation is to look for the few examples where the nature of the aspect is clear, and on this basis draw conclusions as to the nature of Hebrew aspect. In such a study we need to find which parts of a clause do what. We need to find the lexical meaning of the verb, how definiteness/indefiniteness, singularity/plurality, adverbials, our knowledge of the world, and other factors contribute to the meaning of the clause (and the nature of the aspect). In order to find the nature of the aspect, we need to find how reference time intersects event time. In order to find the temporal reference, we need to find the deictic center (the vantage point from which an action is viewed), and to find whether reference time comes before or after the deictic center, or coincides with this center.


Please look at example 1). What is the deictic center? Evidently speech time, because the people are speaking to the king. Where is reference time? In other words, what is made visible of the dying event? Because of our knowledge of the world (the context), we know that Jeremiah was still alive. This means that reference time cannot come before the deictic center, but it must come after it. Thus, the author wanted to make visible on of two things, 1) the WAYYIQTOL has future reference, or 2) the WAYYIQTOL is egressive (a part immediately before the end is made visible ("on the point of dying").

1) Jeremiah 38:9 "the prophet... whom they have thrown (QATAL) into the cistern, and he is on the point of dying (WAYYIQTOL)" The last clause can also be translated as " and he will die (WAYYIQTOL).

Please consider example 2). Where is the deictic center? It must be speech time. Where is reference time? The event time is the time it took to use the secret arts, and reference time intersects a point immediately before event time. Thus, the event is conative.

2) Ex 8:14 "But the magicians tried to produce (WAYYIQTOL+ infinitive) ) gnats by their secret arts."

On the basis of numerous examples of WAYYIQTOL and YIQTOL showing the 6 expressions of the imperfective aspect listed above, I conclude that WAYYIQTOL and YIQTOL both represent the imperfective aspect.


Applying the imperfective interpretation of WAYYIQTOL to Genesis 1:10, we may ask: If the WAYYIQTOL of QR) is imperfective, how should we understand it? What does the author to make visible. The deictic center is speech time (reporting time). And reference time occurred before the deictic center. But where does reference time intersect event time (=the calling event, from beginning to end)? This verse is in the category where both the aspects of the QATAL and WAYYIQTOL of the same verb are masked. My translation of the Phoenician Karatepe inscription may throw some light on the use of verb forms in Genesis 1:10. In this narrative inscription of 40 lines we find 2 YIQTOLS, 12 QATALS,, 6 WEQATALs, and 21 infinitive absolutes. The infinitive absolutes have the same function as the WAYYIQTOLs in Hebrew narrative, and 16 of the infinitive absolutes have the conjunction WAW prefixed.

"I am Azitiwada, blessed by Baal, servant of Baal, king of the Danunians, made powerful (QATAL). Baal made (QATAL) me father and mother for the Danunians. I revived (infinitive abs.) the... Danunians. I extended ( infinitive abs) the land of the valley of Adana from the rising of the sun to its setting. And in my days the Danunians had (WEQATAL) everything good, and plenty of grain and good food. And I filled (WAW+ infinitive abs) the granaries of Pahar. and I aquired (WAW+ infinitive abs) horse upon horse, and shield upon shield, and army upon army, by the good will of Baal and the gods. And I shattered (WEQATAL) the enemies, and I drove out (WAW+infinitive abs) every wicked person that was (QATAL) in the land. And I put the house of my Lord in good order (WAW+infinitive abs), and I acted with kindness (WAW+infinitive abs) toward the offspring of my Lord. And I let him sit (WAW+infinitive abs) on his fathers throne. and I made peace (WAW+infinitive abs) with every king. And every king treated me (QATAL) as a father, because of my righteousness, and because of my wisdom, and because of my good heart. And I built (WAW+infinitive abs) strong fortresses in all the remote areas on the borders, in those places where there were (QATAL) wicked men. (There is more text, but I stop here.)"In order to see Genesis 1:10 in light of the Karatepe inscription, we may ask? How shall we understand the infinitive absolutes, particularly the 16 with prefixed WAW? Their deictic center is speech time, and their reference time comes before the deictic center. Thus, the reference is past. No one has claimed that an infinitive absolute is a tense or an aspect. Some of the clauses are durative, dynamic, and telic (e.g., build a house), and others are durative and dynamic (e.g., treated me as a father). Apart from the past reference we can say that the infinitive absolutes make a part of, or the whole action visible. More we cannot know. But interestingly, the infinitive absolutes (which functions like WAYYIQTOLs) occur together with QATALs, and there is absolute no reason why we should claim that the infinite infinitive absolute has the same meaning as the finite QATAL.

The imperfective WAYYIQTOL in Genesis 1:10 has past reference (the deictic center is speech time, and refernece time comes before the deictic center). I see the following possibilities: Example 3) may stress the continuing and open-ended state of having the name "earth" after the act of calling is finished. This is often the meaning of Piel verbs. If one of the three possibilities is correct, a detailed part of the action is made visible, and it is not necessary to do that again. Thus, the following QATAL of the same verb simply is constative.

1) Ingressive: "And God began to call the dry land "earth."

2) Progressive: "And God continued to call the dry land "earth."

3) Resultative: "And God called the dry land "earth."

Best regards,

Rolf Furuli




My interpretation of Genesis 1:10, is that the WAYYIQTOL of QR) is resultative: God gave the names "earth"




>>>In Norwegian we have the saying: "What is
obscurely expressed, is obscurely thought." When
list-members use grammatical terms, even
rejecting some of them in Hebrew, and they refuse
to define their terms, the only conclusion I can
draw, is that their terms cannot be defined in
scientific terms, and that they simply do not
know what they are talking about.

rolf,

actually, i made it clear at the outset i did not know much
about aspect theory. it will really be difficult for me to
suggest a comprehensive definition of it, as you ask.
maybe, as carl suggested, you can propose one if you think
it is necessary at this point.

i also clarified i do not reject aspect, or any other grammatical
theory, in hebrew, as you try to make it look. though i do believe
aspect, under any conceivable definition, was not the major
factor in deciding this particular issue, qatal vs yiqtol.

i was also, perhaps wrongly, interpreting a "perfect tense" as
used by you and others here as a tense which suffers ONLY perfect
action. my error was pointed out by chavoux, who defined a perfect
tense (in the BH context, and if i understood him correctly)
as a tense which suffers both past and present actions.

consequently, i sent an email trying to find a common
basis for further discussion.

there was no need to get personal about it. but if you find my
remarks offensive, i apologize.

still, i think you avoid explaining gen 1:10 under your theory.

regards
nir cohen
_______________________________________________
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