Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Dear Nir,

It is not possible to comment on all your points; I have chosen two.

It is true that different languages grammaticalize different time 
distinctions. But that does not invalidate the distinction that we find in 
most languages of the world, namely past, present, and future. Whereas 
English grammaticalize only past and future, its verbs also have present 
reference. But English present, such as "I walk"  can also refer to the 
future and to the past, as in 1) below. (The examples are taken from M. 
Broman Olsen, "A Semantic and Pragmatic Model for Lexical and Grammatical 
Aspect." (1997)

1a) Present reference: Paul works from now until 4.
1b) Future reference: Paul works tomorrow.
1c) Past reference: So Paul works all yesterday to finish.

English present is not a tense, because it can refer to past, present, and 
future. However, the clauses in 2 are ungrammatical, because "will walk" is 
grammaticalized future and cannot refer to past or present, and "walked" is 
grammaticalized past and cannot refer to present or future

2a) *Paul walked tomorrow.
2b) *Paul will walk yesterday.

Languages that distinguish between past and remote past and have other 
nuances do not blot out the three-way description of time as past, present, 
and future; only finer nuances related to the three are made.

As far as Hebrew is concerned, there are  two possibilities, 1) Hebrew has 
tenses, and 2) Hebrew is tensless. If it has tenses, they may either be past, 
present, and future, past and future, or finer temporal nuanses are 
expressed.  Please note that tenslessness does not mean that past, present, 
and future does not exist. But a tenseless language expresses past, present, 
and future in other ways than by grammaticalized verb forms.

If you mean that Classical Hebrew is a tense language with many different 
time nuances, you must DEMONSTRATE that. So far you have only made claims.


The basic test to find out whether a language is a tense language, is to look 
for at least one verb form which has a uniform time reference, either past or 
future. If such a form is not found, the language is tenseless, Therefore, my 
tests are meaningful indeed.

Let us now make a test from the Hebrew text itself, from Jeremiah 50 and 51, 
that already have been mentioned. The chapters contain prophecies about the 
fall of Babylon. My analysis of the temporal references of the verbs are as 
follows:

111 QATALs; future reference: 59; past: 14; present: 10; present completed 
(English "perfect") 21, present: 5; modal: 2.

55 WEQATALs; future reference: 55

YIQTOL: 82; future reference: 82

WEYIQTOL: 2; future reference: 2

WAYYIQTOLs: 6; future reference: 6

How will you account for the 59 QATALs with future reference, compared with 
the 14 with past reference? How will you account for the 6 WAYYIQTOLs with 
future reference?




Best regards,


Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway


Onsdag 4. September 2013 06:53 CEST skrev "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
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew