Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Opinions on J. Wash Watts "A Survey of Syntax in the Hebrew Old Testament

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] Opinions on J. Wash Watts "A Survey of Syntax in the Hebrew Old Testament
  • Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 09:10:06 +0100

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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page