Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Dear Nir, 
 
You should have read my dissertation before you tell the list-members what I 
mean and what I have done.

> in order to show that BH does not consider time as verb form parameter, rolf
> defines time in a very narrow and non-compromising sense, imposed by some
> theories. this, of course, is the wrong direction: in an empirical science, 
> it
> is fact which determines theory. BH indeed uses time in more 
> ways than he envisages.

> of course, in spite of rolf's opinion, almost everybody
> agrees that BH uses time as an important determinant of 
> the verb form. however, not in the same way english does, for example. or
> chinese. these diferences should be made precise.

I never "define time," but I define the concept "tense." Here I follow 
Comrie's definition, namely, that tense "is grammaticalized location in 
time." For example, this mens that if a language has tenses, we can see a 
uniform use of some verb forms: Some forms are uniformely used with past 
reference, and other forms are used with future reference.
When we find that all verb forms in a particular language can have past, 
present and future reference, that language does not have tenses. I have 
already mentioned that I have found 997 WAYYIQTOLs with non-past reference 
and 956 QATALs with future reference. The only way to nullify my conclusion 
that these examples show that Hebrew does not have tenses, is to show that 
the mentioned WAYYIQTOLs and QATALs occur in strange contexts. But that is 
not true; the examples occur both in poetic and prose texts.

I mentioned in my post to Kimmo that the best example of a uniform use of 
verb forms of which i know, is Greek imperfect. If anyone can give me an 
example of a non-past use of Greek imperfect, please do that off-list.

Here I have two important questions for you: Is there a language in the world 
where the semantic meaning of verb tenses is different in poetic and prose 
texts? What is your evidence that the semantic meaning of Hebrew verbs are 
different in poetic and prose texts?


> aspect, too, is divided under most theories into viewpoint aspect and
> situation aspect. for some reason, in the BH context the
> perfect(ive)/imperfect(ive) division is called by many "aspect", ignoring 
> the
> other half, i.e. the distinction between (in first approximation, see 
> wendler,
> smith etc) state and event. 
> 
> so, what rolf calls "aspect" is really only "half aspect".
> where is the other half?

Your statement above leads to confusion. You refer to Carlota Smith. She uses 
the terminology "viewpoint aspect" for perfectivity and imperfectivity, and 
what she calls "neutral viewpoints." She uses "situation aspects" with 
reference to the Vendlerian concepts states, activities, achievements, 
accomplishments, and semelfactives.  In my dissertation I use all the 
Vendlerian concepts, but I subsume them under the name "procedural traits" 
and not "situation aspect." The important thing is not the term used, but 
that each term is clearly defined. So I do not use "half aspect."  

I downloaded your manuscript. The basic weakness in my view is that you do 
not have clear definitions of your terms. For example, you use the term 
"gnomic" in a much wider sense than usual. Therefore, your interpretations 
including "gnomic" cannot be tested.  A few comments to your 
"all-propositions" in a) and b).

> a) wayiqtols and weqatals describe events and not states.
> unless the reason for the waw-prefix is SYNTACTIC (i.e. there was no
> alternative). 

Your words  "there was no alternative" are very interesting, because they can 
be applied to the  WAYYIQTOLs used of events in narrative texts as well.  In 
a narrative text, the reference is past, and one event follows the other. So 
there is no alternative to the use of the WAW-prefix (expressed as WAY 
because of ohonological rules); thus, the WAY-prefix is syntactically 
conditioned. This means that the verb form in each case is YIQTOL, but 
because of syntactical requirements, the YIQTOL has a WAY-prefix.

> 
> b) all wayiqtols and weqatals have the value "relative future",
> compared with their event predecessor verb form. with the same caveat.

All-propositions are notoriously dangerous. What is "relative future"? In 
Table 6.2 in my dissertation there are 26 examples where the time of the 
WAYYIQTOL is similar with the time before (there are more examples as well).

Examples:

1 Samuel 1:17 "answered and said."
2 Kings 18:28 "stood and called," "spoke and said."
1 chronicles 29:22 "ate and drank."

Some examples OF WAQATAL with the same time reference:

Jeremiah 50: 22 "will stumble" (WAQATAL)  and "will fall" (WEQATAL); "will 
kindle a fire" (WEQATAL) "will consume" (WEQATAL.
Jeremiah 51:8  "will fall (QATAL) and "will be broken" (WEQATAL)
Jeremiah 51:44 "will punish (WEQATAL) and "will spew out" (WEQATAL)


Why not apply your theories to Jeremiah, chapters 50 and 51.  In 50, there 
are 32 QATALs with future reference. There are also 17 WEQATALs, 50 YIQTOLs 
and 2 WAYYIQTOLs with future reference. In 51, there are 27 QATALs with 
future reference. There are also 38 WEQATALS, 32 YIQTOLs, 2 WEYIQTOLS,  and 4 
WAYYIQYOLs with future reference. How shall we explain all these different 
forms with future reference? Does any of them represent tense?


Best regards,



Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway
   



> 
> nir cohen
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew