Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

dear rolf,

you are raising an important point: we indeed start from two different notions
of tense.

definition 1 (yours): tense as a grammaticalized verb format which specifies
EXCLUSIVELY absolute past, or present, or future.

definition 2: (mine) tense as that part of verb semantics which is neither
aspect nor mood. namely, ANY grammaticalized use which expresses temporal
relations.

i admit i used the second, not the first, definition as my point of origin. 
in doing so i was following (so i thought) joosten 2002 or cook 2006, where
exactly tense is discucced as an option to aspect in BH. maybe this use
is not standard - i am not a professional linguist. but then my question is:
how do you describe definition 2, if not by "tense"?

-------------

definition 1 is much narrower than definition 2. an important ingredient of it
is OBLIGATORIETY. namely, it requires (as you indeed mention) that EVERY use
of the verb form should be consistent with its UNIQUE temporal orientation.

actually, the word EVERY is perhaps too strong. contrary to your 
claims, even the english past and future tenses can be used 
out of their temporal orientation, e.g.:

1) VOLITIVES:  "I wish  you WALKED faster" "I wish they COULD see us now". 
2) RELATIVE PAST:  "If you break the vase I'll tell dad it WAS you".
3) CONDITIONALS:   "Even if you RAN you would miss the train".
4) DECLARATIVES:   "I WILL not stop now".

nevertheless, i tend to agree with you that, by and large, english past and
future are tenses according to definition 1.

whereas definition 2 does not require obligatoriety. 

perhaps the use of the english present tense for habituals is of this type:
(almost) 
EVERY habitual is in present tense; not every verb in present tense is a
habitual. for me, based on definition 2, this is a tense, and a
grammaticalization.

----------------------

now, the issue is BH. here, if we take the first, more 
restricted definition of tense, as basis of discussion 
then we get nowhere: it has been known for a long time 
(say, mcfall 1982, if not earlier) that none of the BH 
verb forms satisfies any measure of temporal obligatoriety. namely, each of
them can equally be used as past, present and future.
 
if, however, you are willing to consider the second definition 
as a basis for "tense" (if you object to the nomenclature, 
pls suggest a better one), i.e.  remove obligatoriety, 
then you should accept as "tense" also partial
grammaticalizations. 

it is this more constructive point of view which i am defending here.

-------------------------

the fact that BH is not a tensual language, according to definition 1, does
not imply that BH is not a tensual
language, according to definition 2. 


>>> 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. 

so far i agree, using definition 1 of tense.


>>> But a tenseless language expresses past, present, and future in other ways
than by grammaticalized verb forms.

here is what i do not agree to. you confuse tense (according to definition 1),
a very narrow concept, with grammaticalization, which is much wider and is
consistent with definition 2.

----------------------------------

>>> If you mean that Classical Hebrew is a tense language with many different
time nuances, you must DEMONSTRATE that. 

i mean that BH is primarily tensual, according to the second definition. my
demonstration is all in the document i wrote, all 24 chapters.

------------------------------------

>>> So far you have only made claims.

let us avoid empty statements. you have all my document's ~pp300.

-------------------------------------

>>> 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.

i already agreed BH is not tensual according to definition 1.

-------------------------------------

>>> 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?

------------

if your aim is to show that BH is not a tense language, according to the first
definition,i already agreed. 

but if indeed you want to go FURTHER, leave TERRA FIRME and discuss the
precise verb semantics of each one of the verbs in jer 50-51, in the 
sense of the second definition, and my analysis, compared with your own
conclusions, i take up the challenge. isnt this what the BHVS 
enigma is about?

it might take me a couple of days to prepare it.

Best regards,
nir cohen