Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Rolf" <rolf.furuli AT sf-nett.no>]

Dear Jerry,

Here is a summary of my conclusions:

1) My basic premise is a clear distinction between semantic meaning 
(uncancellable meaning) and conversational pragmatic implicature, that is, a 
distinction between the meaning of a verb form that do not change, and the 
meaning that is derived from the context. The distinction between semantics 
and pragmatics is elementary in other linguistic studies, but not in studies 
of the Semitic languages.

2) Tense can be defined as "grammaticalization of location in time," which 
means that tense is an intrinsic property of verb forms that do not change 
because of the context.

3) Narrative verbs have by definition past reference, but the verb form used 
in narrative contexts need not represent grammaticalized location in the 
past. One example is Phoenician, where the infinitive absolute is used as the 
narrative verb, but no one would say that the infinitive absolute has an 
intrinsic past tense. Another example is Ugaritic, where the same verbs 
expressed with the same grammatical form are used with past reference in one 
account and future reference in another account.

4) The narrative verb used in Hebrew is the so-called WAYYIQTOL. According to 
my analysis of the 14,536 WAYYIQTOLs in the Tanakh, 93.1% have past reference 
and 6.9% have non-past reference. Because of the high percentage of past 
references, most scholars conclude that the WAYYIQTOL either IS past tense or 
IS the perfective aspect. These conclusions are problematic because:

a) the WAYIQTOLs with non-past references occur in normal contexts, and a 
tense should have a uniform temporal reference.

b) there are no traces in the Tanakh of a grammaticalization process that 
would lead a prefix form with the prefixed conjunction WAW to become the very 
opposite of the prefix form without WAW.

c) No one has been able to explain how the element WAY- (WAW) changed the 
meaning of the form with WAY- to the very opposite of the form without WAY.

d) Such a change of meaning to the very opposite because of a prefixed 
conjunction is unprecedented in the languages of the world.

5) Because of 4 a), b), c) and d), there are no reasons to view the WAYYIQTOL 
as different from the YIQTOL form as far as meaning is concerned. So, just as 
infinitive absolute is the narrative form in  Phoenician, and the prefix form 
(YAQTUL(U) is the narrative form in Ugaritic, the prefixform YIQTOL is the 
narrative form in Classical Hebrew.

6) But how can the function and use of the WAY + YIQTOL be explained?  The 
simple explanation is that narrative texts express sequences of actions in 
the past, one action following the other, and the element that is driving the 
consecution is the conjunction WAW. The Hebrew writers, more than writers in 
any language that I know of, had a preference for this conjunction—"and this 
happened, and then this happened, and then this happened...."  The gemination 
and stress pattern of the WAYYIQTOL form is based on the Phonetic rules of 
the Masoretes and are nothing special. So the form can morphologically 
speaking be reduced to  a YIQTOL with the prefixed conjunction WAW.

7) The real obstacle to accepting that the WAYYIQTOL as a YIQTOL,  is that 
YIQTOL is believed to code for future  and present or for the imperfective 
aspect, and how can such functions corroborate past reference?

a) Before we exclude imperfective verbs in Hebrew narrative, remember the 
narrative verbs Phoenician and Ugaritic.

b) The real problem is that most aspectual definitions are simply taken out 
of the blue; they are philosophical and vague, and they do not seem to fit a 
system where imperfective forms can be narrative forms. If we instead of 
choosing one of the many aspectual definitions, analyze the Hebrew verbs in 
the light of the the basic linguistic properties, reference time, event time, 
and deictic center, we may see that imperfective verbs have properties that 
fit narratives.

8) The conclusion of all the previous points is that the reason why WAYYIQTOL 
so often occurs in past context is pragmatic and not semantic.


Best regards,


Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway.


Tirsdag 14. Mai 2013 17:17 CEST skrev Jerry Shepherd <jshepherd53 AT gmail.com>:

> Hi List,
>
>
>
> In our recent discussions about “meaning,” one of the things that Karl and
> I discussed was the wayyiqtol.  Without starting a debate or any kind of
> lengthy discussion, I’d like to know what some of the various scholars on
> the list think the function of the wayyiqtol is.  I know that Rolf has done
> extensive work here, and I’d love to see a short summary of his conclusions
> here.  And I seem to remember that George has shared his views here as well.
> In any case, I’m not looking for a debate, but just a survey of the range
> of opinions as to what wayyiqtol’s function is.
>
>
>
> Here’s my own brief summary.  I think that the most likely basic
> significance of wayyiqtol is that of indicating consecutiveness,
> succession, or sequencing.  This succession can take place in a discourse
> that relates either past, present, or future events.  But it is narrative,
> more than any other genre, that makes the most use of the idea of
> succession, and therefore makes the most use of the wayyiqtol.  Because of
> this usage and the close association of narrative and wayyiqtol, the form,
> for all practical purposes, in narrative, comes to indicate past tense.  
> This
> is so much the case that individual narratives can start with the
> wayyiqtol, and even in non-narrative texts, the wayyiqtol can indicate a
> past event, even without a sequence of verbs before it.  Thus I am in
> agreement with Joüon-Muraoka that “the wayyiqtol form became so strongly
> associated with its past tense function that it was even used at the
> beginning, or at least at the relative beginning of some narratives.” (sect
> 118b).
>
>
>
> Again, no debate, or even back and forth discussion, just a survey of
> opinions.
>
>
>
> Blessings,
>
>
>
> Jerry
>
> Jerry Shepherd
> Taylor Seminary
> Edmonton, Alberta
> jshepherd53 AT gmail.com