Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Nir cohen - Prof. Mat." <nir AT ccet.ufrn.br>]

dear rolf,

>>> I never "define time," but I define the concept "tense." 

if tense is the grammaticalized location of time, then the question is, what
type of time is being grammaticalized in BH. now, in your opinion, BH flatly
does not grammaticalize time. your reasoning is all based on the fact that
time has only three possible states: past, present, future. then you did the
statistics and saw that this was not so. in my view, the statistics is wrong,
because the assumption is wrong: BH has FAR more than 3 states for time. in my
previous email i tried to describe the richness of these temporal
possibilities. maybe if you repeat your statistics with ALL these
possibilities in mind, your statistics will look quite different.

>>> 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. 

this is not comrie’s statement: it represents your interpretation of it.
first, i am not sure comrie opined that time has only three states. and even
if he did so, i say he was wrong. i quote:

-----

WIKIPEDIA: Not all languages grammaticalise tense, and those that do differ in
their grammaticalisation thereof. Languages without tense are called tenseless
languages and include Burmese, Dyirbal and Chinese[2]. 

…now comes the interesting part (exclamations signs are mine):…..

WIKIPEDIA: Not all grammaticalise the three-way system of past–present–future.
For example, some two-tense languages such as English and Japanese express
past and non-past, 

this latter covering both present and future in one verb form, (!!!)

whereas others such as Greenlandic and Quechua have future and non-future.
Four-tense languages make finer distinctions either in the past (e.g. remote
vs recent past), or the future (e.g. near vs remote future). 

The six-tense  (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) language Kalaw Lagaw Ya of Australia has the
remote past, the recent past, the today past, the present, the today/near
future and the remote future. The differences between such finer distinctions
are the distance on the timeline between the temporal reference points from
the present.

---------

end of quotation. let us look at BH. according to reichenbach, there are three
absolute states (past, present, future) and three relative states (prior,
coincident, posterior), of which BH grammaticalizes all (perhaps not the
anterior). and, in the gnomic situation, the atemporal. also, BH has a
different treatments of the repeated event (yiqtol/weqatal in past, present
and future. how do you treat repeated events in your statistics?) and states
(participle). at least these last two, and the gnomic, are temporally less
definite, and so include an important aspectual element (imperfective). BH
also uses qatal for remote past and yiqtol for remote future. so, BH
grammaticalizes roughly 10 temporal states.

>>> 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 will be glad to examine any particular text. as explained, i cannot accept
the validity of this tripartite statistics.

>>> 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. 

sorry i cannot help. i do not know greek.

>>> 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? 

please read WIKIPEDIA: gnomic poetry. it mentions that the greek word “gnomic”
itself was coined after a certain greek poetic style. it also mentions several
traditions of old poetry. 

stylism in poetry is not simple to analyze, since it takes different shapes in
different cultures. most modern poets, including poets of the english
language, use intensively the present tense, and refrain from past tense, if
not for other reasons (gnomicity!) then for the annoying repetitiveness of the
final –ED, and its lack of rhymeness. in this respect, they follow the
biblical gnomic example, but in a different way. indeed, when a very intense
moment of reflection is described, the present tense is used in poetry, even
if the event is a past one. this can be attested in many languages.

canaanite is different. apparently the NW semitic languages were, essentially,
aspectual in their origin (just two verb forms, yiqtol/qatal). canaanite epics
use just these two. (participle as present tense on events was still incipient
in BH). so, gnomic expression did not have the present tense to fall back
into, and so used qatal-yiqtol. this was only possible when the story did not
have daily relevance, i.e. in sentences of descriptive rather than
chronological sentences, mostly in poetic circumstances. 

this poetic form was later perfected in psalms.

>>> What is your evidence that the semantic meaning of Hebrew verbs are
different in poetic and prose texts? 

the question is a bit odd: empirically, it is clear to us both that the use is
different. in psalms, for example, wayiqtol is rarely used except for a few
chapters which tell a story (the moralist chapters). but the chapters of
prayer contain basically only qatal-yiqtol, in versicles, with strong
preference to pairs qatal+yiqtol, with qatal not past and yiqtol not future,
rather atemporal. this is very uncharacteristic to prose. 

so, the question is not if the semantics is different: it is how it can be
justified. my answer consists of, essentially, 1) gnomicity: as no story is
told, no temporal labeling is required, hence qatal and yiqtol serve the same
verb-semantic purpose: an atemporal verb form, a mere vessel of content;  2)
variation: rejection of repeated qatals, or repeated yiqtols, for poetic 
reasons.

clearly (cook 2005 o gnomicity), in most cases gnomicity is an idealization.
this means that often, when qatal and yiqtol appear in the same versicle,
yiqtol is causally a sequel of qatal, though not a temporal sequel (often,
both are states, not events). again, this follows the observation that BH
tense is not just a grammaticalization of time, but also of cusality.

> 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.  

does my statement lead to confusion just because  it does not adhere to your
terminology?

>>> 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 withdraw my words with apology. i was wrong. 

>>>>I downloaded your manuscript. The basic weakness in my view is that you do
not have clear definitions of your terms. 
i would appreciate if you be a bit more specific. in chapter II i define ALL
my tense/aspect terminology. as to state and event, they are fully defined in
detail in ch 8. 

>>> For example, you use the term "gnomic" in a much wider sense than usual.
Therefore, your interpretations including "gnomic" cannot be tested.  

1. this is not an example of an unclear definition. 

2. my definition is in the spirit of wikipedia “gnomic aspect”, which speaks
clearly of the lack of specificity to aspectual and temporal differences.
maybe also of cook and bowling. what is your definition of gnomicity? 

3. now i am lost: your definition of aspect is different from that of, say,
driver. does this mean that your assertions 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. 

you missed the point i was making in a). here is an example.
לד  וְאַחֲרֵי-כֵן, קָרָא אֶת-כָּל-דִּבְרֵי הַתּוֹרָה, הַבְּרָכָה, 
וְהַקְּלָלָה--כְּכָל-הַכָּתוּב, בְּסֵפֶר הַתּוֹרָה.
(josh 8). the reason why ויקרא was not used is displacement of the waw by the
temporal anchor ואחרי-כן. now, temporal anchors in BH are always
sentence/clause initial (exceptions are very rare and have their reason too).
therefore, wayiqtol (removed from clause primacy) becomes syntactically
inviable, and so in a sequence of past events, it is replaced; but not by
yiqtol, as your remark might imply; rather, by qatal. the reason is, i
reiterate, that qatal and wayiqtol jointly make up what i call the BH
preterite tense. namely, have similar semantic values (in the episodic regime
(roughly what you call “narrative”), past tense).  this approximation of qatal
and wayiqtol was observed by MANY scholars in the past, if i am not wrong,
going back to jouon. and is in fact the basis of waw-hahipuch known since
medieval times. whereas the approximation yiqtol-wayiqtol, assumed by driver,
and (if i understand correctly)  yourself, is rejected by most modern writers.
of course, the term TENSE for the combination qatal-wayiqtol, in a panchronic
view, may be judged as a fusion of two distinct verb forms. i don’t know if
this has been attested before. if not, it might be as well a BH innovation.

> 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). 

by “relative future” i mean “posterior”, or “consecutive”, or “sequel”. below
i respond to ALL your examples, by the same answer: SYNTACTIC VETO.

>>>Examples: 1 Samuel 1:17 "answered and said." 

it can be defended that the two wayiqtols are simultaneous (stylistic merism)
and so the second should be qatal (not a sequel). however, the waw is there,
for better and for worse, forcing a waw-prefixed form. again, this is what i
call SYNTAX GETS IN THE WAY (syntactic veto). 
next, should it be weqatal or wayiqtol? being preterite (description of past
event in episodic regime), wayiqtol is the only alternative.  most of your
subsequent examples are of the same very type.

>>> 2 Kings 18:28 "stood and called," "spoke and said." 

ditto, ditto. the waw is forced. in general, where the second verb form is
solitary (lacks any dependents; a one-word clause), and the waw happens to be
there, qatal cannot be sustained.

>>>1 chronicles 29:22 "ate and drank." 

ditto.

>>>Some examples OF WAQATAL with the same time reference: 
>>> Jeremiah 50: 22 

אֵיךְ נִגְדַּע וַיִּשָּׁבֵר, ditto. there was no way to avoid the waw. qatal 
changed to
wayiqtol. 

>>>"will stumble" (WAQATAL)  and "will fall" (WEQATAL); 

לב  וְכָשַׁל זָדוֹן וְנָפַל, וְאֵין לוֹ מֵקִים ditto, the solitary verb form 
with a waw.

>>>Jeremiah 51:8  "will fall (QATAL) and "will be broken" (WEQATAL) 

פִּתְאֹם נָפְלָה בָבֶל, וַתִּשָּׁבֵר let us separate the issues. as to נפלה 
(a discussion on
the prophetic past), let us leave it to the next discussion (i address it in
my ch XX). as to ותשבר, again this is syntactic veto: the waw is forced by
syntax, so qatal could not be used and was replaced by wayiqtol. 
however, it is not necessarily true that the two eventualities are really in
parallel: at least causally, falling  comes before breaking. indeed (my chs
VIII-IX) i discuss the fact that TENSE is not just TIME but also CAUSALITY;
namely, if one eventuality causes the other, the other is “sequel” and so
deserves to be wayiqtol. this is a distinction which english never does.

>>>Jeremiah 51:44 "will punish (WEQATAL) and "will spew out" (WEQATAL) 

this case is more delicate, since syntax provides an alternative: ואת בלעו
אוציא מפיו. however, as i explain elsewhere (ch XI), BH does not use fronting
when the fronted constituent is a generic one, namely, has no importance of
its own. there are other equivalent explanations: e.g. discontinuity (i.e.
shift of attention to a new object, which must be non-generic).
once you accept that fronting was not viable, we are back in square one: the
waw is stuck in front of the verb form and wayiqtol is forced.

>>> "will kindle a fire" (WEQATAL) "will consume" (WEQATAL. 

; וְהִצַּתִּי אֵשׁ בְּעָרָיו, וְאָכְלָה כָּל-סְבִיבֹתָיו.  {ס} again, the 
alternative would be וכל
סביבותיו תאכל. the use of yiqtol would be consistent, TENSUALLY, to והצתי
(future), since yiqtol+weqatal form a tensual pair. however, once more, the
fronting would bring to the fore a secondary, generic element, hence was 
avoided. 

furthermore, i do not consider the two eventualities as parallel, since first
you kindle a fire and only then it consumes everything around. so the second
is truly consecutive here (posterior).

>>> 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? 

rolf, i answered ALL your specific questions, showing temporal consistency in
all. observe that in all the SYNTACTIC VETOS, the toggle occurs within each
one of the pairs qata/wayiqtol (episodic past) and yiqtol/weqatal (episodic
future), showing TEMPORAL consistency of absolute value. but only if you
consider both elements in the pair as consisting of a single TENSE. also, all
the wayiqtols/weqatals in these examples show a second TEMPORAL consistency
(all are posterior/sequel), unless forced by an irreversible syntactic 
situation.

i will be glad to discuss further any concrete example, but i cannot accept
your tripartite statistics.  if i manage the time, i will take up your
challange and produce MY statistics for jer 50-51.

best regards, 
nir cohen