Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Rolf:

On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 11:15 PM, Rolf <rolf.furuli AT sf-nett.no> wrote:

Dear Nir,

I will wait for your analysis.  In the meantime I have a challenge to those who believe that the semantic meaning of WAYYIQTOL is different from the semantic meaning of YIQTOL, and/or believe that that WAYYIQTOL has past tense:

How will you explain the past reference of all the YIQTOLs and WAYYIQTOLs in Psalm 18? How can you uphold your model with so many "exceptions" to it? (There are scores upon scores of similar "exceptions")

I will add another challenge:

The verbs of Proverbs 31:10-29  describe the characteristics of an excellent wife. There are 18 QATALs, 5 YIQTOLs, 9 WAYYIQTOLs, 2 passive participles, 1 Niphal participle, and 1 active participle, all having present reference. If the YIQTOLs and WAYYIQTOLs have the opposite meaning, and the WAYYIQTOLs have past tense, how can the 5 YIQTOLs and 9 WAYYIQTOLs in this context have present reference?

When one reads this passage as a whole, through verse 31, it’s present tense, imperfective aspect, indicative mood. That means that all but one of the conjugations in their contexts reference the same tense, aspect and mood. That shows that these conjugations also don’t indicate aspect nor mood either.

When read without points and including the verbless phrases, the breakdown becomes clearer: this passage can be read as containing 20 Qatals, 18 Yiqtols (I didn’t make a differentiation between Yiqtol and Wayyiqtol), two participles used as nouns, one imperative, and six verbless clauses. If we count the participles as nouns, then there are eight verbless clauses.

But what about the 18 QATALs with present reference, do they have the the same semantic meaning as the YIQTOLs and WAYTYIQTOLs, because they have the same present reference? The answer is No.  If we analyze the use of the verb forms by using event time, reference time, and the deictic center, we may find that QATAL and WEQATAL, both being perfective have some characteristics that are similar with YIQTOL, WAYYIQTOL, and WEYIQTOL that are imperfective, and other characteristics that are different. In other words, the two aspects are not mutually exclusive in Hebrew, as the English aspects are, but they have some common characteristics and some different characteristics. Communication is to make some parts of a meaning potential visible and keep other parts invisible. Therefore, in contexts where aspectual details are not important, both aspects can be used with the same temporal reference. This can be illustrated by the difference between phonemic and phonetic transcription. The phonetic transcription is more complex and detailed compared with  the phonemic one, because it also portrays articulatory differences. Two or more different phonemic transcriptions can be subsumed under one phonetic transcription. But when details are important, differences are expressed by different phonetic transcriptions.

I don’t understand this paragraph in reference to http://www-01.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOflinguisticTerms/WhatIsAspect.htm .

In Proverbs 31:10–31, the verbs are all present tense, imperfective aspect, so there’s no difference in event time, reference time, and the deictic center, yet there’s still a pattern in usage.

Moreover, in a clause there is an interplay of several factors in addition to the aspects, such as lexical meaning, stems,  aktionsart and stativity, singularity versus plurality, definiteness versus indefiniteness, addition or non-addition of objects, indirect objects,  adverbials, and different particles. So even if imperfective and perfective verbs are used with the same time reference, the interplay of the aspects with other factors of the clauses, may signal particular differences of meaning.

Getting back to the context of Proverbs 31:10–31, all of the verbs are used to indicate actions within an imperfective aspect, indicating that they are imperfective. We find within that passage that the Yiqtols and Wayyiqtols are used identically (exception, verse 10), indicating that there’s no difference between them.

Yet, there’s a pattern, one that is clearer in Proverbs 31:10–31 than in most other passages, but it’s a pattern that doesn’t fit within the confines of TAM (tense, aspect, mood). Furthermore, it’s a pattern that shows why the wide usage of Wayyiqtol in past tense narrative without the Wayyiqtol itself becoming a marker for tense.

The one exception is one of mood, verse 10 the Yiqtol is used as a subjunctive, not an indicative as the rest of the verbs in the section.

The important question is: How can several YIQTOLs and WAYYIQTOLs occur together in one text, all having past reference, and then in another text, all having present reference, if the meaning of the WAYYIQTOL is the opposite of the YIQTOL?



Best regards,


Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway

Karl W. Randolph.