Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Rolf:

On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 3:28 AM, Rolf <rolf.furuli AT sf-nett.no> wrote:

Dear Karl,

You have made several good points. I agree, contrary to George, that we cannot interpret Hebrew verbs in the light of other languages, and we need to analyze Biblical Hebrew according to its own standards.

Even languages as similar as Swedish and Norwegian are different enough that one must recognize the differences in order to have an accurate description of both. In order to recognize the differences, we need to analyze each language according to its own standards.

 

But here is the problem. We cannot start with "cogito ergo sum," as did Descartes, but any study must build on auxiliary hypotheses (cf. Duhem/Quine thesis). This means that we must build on the works of others, and the conclusions they have drawn.

The question is, if, after looking at the works of others, and at the data upon which they built their theories, that it can be demonstrated that their theories don’t accurately describe the data available? Depending on the theory, would it not have to be modified or discarded in part or in whole?

 

As for the Hebrew verbal system, there are too many auxiliary hypotheses, and too many different definitions. Therefore most students of Hebrew, including many scholars, are just parroting what others have said. I disagree with George, but I know that he for many years have wrestled with Hebrew verbs, and his system is a novel system that differs from others.

>From my early student days,  I have sought a way to reduce the auxiliary hypotheses (or assumptions), and to avoid to start with a definition of aspect (more than twenty different definitions exist)

Do you mean more than 20 different definitions exist within linguistics? If so, does that not make the term undefined? If the term is undefined, does not its use then confuse rather than communicate? Do you see why I keep referring to the SIL definition of “aspect”?

 

—if we start with a definition, we are bound, and in a way we have violated the basic scientific principle: "If the conclusions of a study is given before the study starts, the study is not scientific."

How so? How does defining a meter as referring to a certain length, predefine the results of an experiment that requires length measurement? So the same way, if we define “aspect” in verbal conjugations to a certain understanding of how time is grammaticalized by some languages (e.g. SIL), how does that pre-determine how a particular language expresses aspect?

 

As for me, my study builds on four assumptions, 1) the Masoretic texts represents the the text of the Tanakh in the time BCE (text critical matters are of course considered),  2) a study of all the verbs of the Masoretic text will show the function and possibly the meaning of the Hebrew verbal system in the time BCE, 3) tense -not temporal reference) is grammaticalization of location in time, and 4) Hebrew, as any other language, can be analyzed by the parameters event time, reference time, and the deictic center. I think that most Hebrew scholars agree with 1) and 2), and most linguists agree with 3) and 4).

Okay, I would modify #1 to the consonantal MT (text critical matters considered) but otherwise agree with the other three. But these four points limit your study to one of tense. The question of aspect (SIL definition) isn’t covered by considerations 3 & 4.

The advantage of the parameters mentioned in 3), is that by using them we can show whether a language has tenses (semantic meaning) or only temporal reference that must be seen from the context (conversational pragmatic implicature). Further, these parameters can be used to find if a language has aspects, and to describe the nature of these aspects (six basic differences between the aspects in the languages of the world can be pinpointed). Thus, the nature of the Hebrew aspects can be described without starting with a particular definition.

Now I have no idea what you mean. First you say there are more than 20 different definitions for “aspect”, now six basic differences between languages, so what are you talking about?

If the SIL definition (the same definition I was taught as a student so many years ago) is found not to describe a certain grammaticalization, wouldn’t it be better to make a neologism instead of redefining “aspect”?

I started with a study of tense/temporal reference. When the tense is past, reference time (RT) comes before the deictic center (C), when it is future, RT comes after C, and when the reference is present, RT and C coincides. An analysis of ALL the verbs of Classical Hebrew gave the result that all verb forms can be used with past, future and present reference. Therefore, Hebrew does not have tenses.

It is not true that I have limited myself to a study of tense, because tense plays only a minor part in my dissertation. As a matter of fact, aspect both can and MUST be studied apart from tense. Aspect is non-deictic, and the relationship between event time and reference time, which expresses the aspect, does not say anything about tense. When reference time intersects event time and a part of event time is made visible, there are differences in three respects, 1) the angle of intersection (before or at the beginning, in the middle, immediately before the end, and after the end), the breadth of the intersection (Is the whole event time or a small of big part of it made visible), and 3) the quality of the intersection (are details made visible or not). Because there are two aspects, six differences can be measured, and this has nothing to do with tense. Most of my dissertation deals with aspectual matters, and it is shown that the the relationship between event time and reference time is uniform in YIQTOL, WAYYIQTOL, and WEYIQTOL, and it is uniform in QATAL and WEQATAL. However, most scholars do not accept this, and in their models temporal references are important. Therefore, it has to a rather great extent ben necessary for me to discuss the temporal references of the verbs in order to compare my model to other models.

How would you say your definition of “aspect” compares with the SIL definition of “aspect” found at http://www-01.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOflinguisticTerms/WhatIsAspect.htm ? How does it differ? How is it the same?

Best regards,


Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway

I was originally taught the tense model of Biblical Hebrew verbal conjugations, but before that first year was out, taught also the aspect (SIL definition) model. I spent years trying to make the aspect model fit the text, and came to the conclusion that there’s no way to harmonize the model with the text. At that time, being cut off from scholarly contact, I decided to ignore verbal grammar except to note the paradigms, and read for meaning, what does the author communicate with what he wrote?

My results were not pre-determined by fixed definitions for “tense” and “aspect”, rather they were informed by those definitions. The conclusion is that Biblical Hebrew grammaticalizes for neither tense nor aspect.

Karl W. Randolph.