Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

> Dear Randall,



> Yes, I see yiqtol as primarily marking imperfective aspect when in a past
> context, but as unmarked for aspect and primarily marking future when
> in a context needing future marking.
> Likewise, I read wayyiqtol as primarily marking past and generally
> perfective
> (though sometimes needing authorial change of perspective in
> narrative where succesive wayyiqtol pick up a thread that was not
> complete. Gen 37:28 'they passed by' ... followed by events where
> they hadn't yet passed by. This is a minority function, but a recognized
> part of the langauge. We could coin a new term, modeled on Greek
> 'historical present' and call these 'narrative perfectives', where in fact
> they mismatch with prototypical perfectivity, to provide narrative ease and
> rhetorical effect. PS: Targum Onkelos kept the 'perfective aspect' while
> LXX decided to clarify with imperfectivity in Greek.)
>
> Furthermore, one should question whether aspect would be capable
> of adequately covering two categories of a binary indicative verb
> system. Studies in infant and creole languages suggest that aspect
> and tense will likely be intertwined in such a lmited morphological
> categorization. This is what most every fluent reader of BH sees.
> (This also assumes that the wayyiqtol and weqatal
> represent basically the same indicative T-A-M distinctions as the
> qatal and yiqtol and are not two additional, non-intersecting
> aspect categories.)
>
> >  2) The application of the terms "perfective" and "imperfective" is
> >  strictly subjective, and there are nothing that can be used as
> >  controls.
>
> Surely you are aware that in general linguistic literature perfective and
> imperfective are considered 'subjective' while "lexical aspect" AKA
> 'aktionsart' is considered 'objective' and part of the inherent semantics
> of a verb? And yes, most of us are aware that there are complications
> with these definitions in Slavic languages, none of which I know.


Verbs that are marked for durativity, and/or dynamicity, and/or 
telicity can never lose these characteristics; they are an 
uncancellable part of the verbs. There characteristics, therefore, 
can be said to be 'objective.'  A speaker or writer uses a particular 
aspect in order to make visible a part of the action. The choice of 
aspect is a 'subjective' endeavor. Examples 1) and 2) show how 
English aspects can be used.  In 1) the author focuses on the middle 
of the action, after its beginning and before its end. The past 
reference shows that the action was factually completed, but the 
focus in 1) is on the continuing action. In 2) the author focuses on 
the action and its end.

1)  Ann was walking in the garden.

2)  Ann has walked in the garden.

When I used the word 'subjective' , I did not refer to the subjective 
choice of the author when he or she chooses an aspect, but I referred 
to the application of the terms 'imperfective' and 'perfective'. 
This is my basic objection to your linguistic theory of Hebrew verbs. 
Because your aspectual definitions are arbitrary, and they are not 
connected with verb forms (the conjugations), there are no controls. 
And your conclusions cannot be tested by others. Therefore PANTA REI 
linguistically speaking! Take for example the term "complete," which, 
according to you, means to present "the whole event."  But how can we 
know that an author presents the event as a whole? Which criteria or 
parameters can you use? For example, you view YIQTOLs as basically 
imperfective, but in future contexts you view them as 'perfective' or 
as unmarked for aspect. How can you know this?  As far as I can see, 
you only build on your subjective assessment and nothing else. If I 
am wrong, please correct me.

An approach to a dead language will of course include much 
subjectivity. But in my view, the researcher should as far as 
possible use definable parameters and criteria that others can use to 
test his or her conclusions. This is possible as far as Hebrew is 
concerned. The following approach can be tested by others:

The parameters "deictic center," "event time," and "reference time" 
are not language-specific but universal. The term "tense" can be 
defined as "a grammaticalizetion of location in time,"  and is 
different from temporal reference, which is a pragmatic factor.

The first step is to use reference time and the deictic center to 
find out wether Hebrew has tenses. The conclusion of my study of 
80,000 Hebrew verbs is that none of the conjugations YIQTOL, 
WEYIQTOL, WAYYIQTO, QATAL,  WEQATAL has  a uniform temporal 
reference. Thus, gramaticalized location in time" (tense) is lacking 
in Classical Hebrew.

The second step is to find out what the verbs represent in this 
tenseless language. We should not start with an arbitrary definition 
of aspect, because that cannot be tested by others. Instead, we can 
use the parameters event time and reference time in order to see 
whether the verbs have aspects, and in that case, how the aspects 
differ. There are two aspects, and there are three ways to find the 
relationship between event time and reference time. This means that 
the aspects can be tested in six different ways. By using this 
procedure we need no pre-chosen aspect definition. But the definition 
of the aspects emerges as we see the relationship between event time 
and reference time in each verb. BTW, English and Hebrew aspects are 
similar in three respects and different in three respects.

I have found that the prefix forms with and without WE-/WAY- 
represent the imperfective aspect, and the suffix forms with and 
without WE- represent the perfective aspect.

My conclusions can be tested:

1. Consider the definitions of deictic center, event time, and reference time.

2. Make a scrupulous distinction between temporal reference and tense.

3. Analyze all the Hebrew verbs and see if any of the conjugations 
has a uniform temporal reference.

4. Analyze all the Hebrew verbs and find the relationship between 
event time and reference time.

5. Find the differences between the two aspects, and see if these 
differences are uniformly distributed among the conjugations.

A word of caution: In many verbs it is difficult to see the 
relationship between event time and reference time. Therefore, we 
particularly need to look for examples that are clear-cut. For 
example, In Phoenician the narrative form is infinitive absolute 
(with and without prefixed WAW), whereas in Hebrew the narrative form 
is the prefix form with a prefixed WAY- In a narrative text we know 
that the consecutive actions factually are terminated before the time 
of writing, but where does reference time intersect event time in 
each case? No one will say that the Phoenician infinitive absolute 
has an intrinsic past tense or an intrinsic aspect, so why should 
this be the case with the Hebrew prefix form with a prefixed WAY-? In 
order to answer this question we need to find examples of the prefix 
form with prefixed WAY- where the relationship between event time and 
reference time are clearly seen. The least likely place to find such 
examples is in narrative texts.



Best regards,

Rolf Furuli






> >  I use one passage as an illustration, namely, Isaiah 9:5, 6.
>
> I'll skip this as premature, only mentioning that I do not find it
> problematic at all. Prophets may or may not look on events from
> the future backwards, and if so, there is still the problem of how
> far back they are looking, to something that has already begun
> in the prophet's day, or not? That is a rather complex context for
> determining the verb system references.
>
>  > Best regards,
> >  Rolf Furuli
>
> braxot
> Randall Buth
>
>
> --
> Randall Buth, PhD
> www.biblicallanguagecenter.com
> Biblical Language Center
> Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew