Subject: [b-hebrew] How does biblical Hebrew describe a past event?
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 07:17:09 +0200
Dear list-members,
The thread discussing present reference got an
abrupt stop with three shots from me and no one
shooting back. It might be interesting to
substitute "present" with "past," and ask which
form(s) are used with past reference.
If we look at instructions for the construction
of the tabernacle, we find that YIQTOLs often are
used when the people are told what they are going
to do, and QATALs are often used when the results
are described. So these are normal forms form for
future and past respectively. In addition to
these forms, in narratives the WAYYIQTOLs are the
normal forms. As a matter of fact, all the
different verbs supposed to be different semantic
forms can be used with past reference. My
analysis of all the verb forms in the Tanakh has
the following numbers of each form with past
reference (and percentage of the total):
How should these numbers be interpreted? We
should not only make a quantitative evaluation,
but also a qualitative evaluation. This means
that we must distinguish between semantics and
pragmatics. For example, most of the WAYYIQTOLs
occur in narrative contexts, and narrative verbs
by definition *must* have past reference
regardless of which verb form is used (In
Phonician the verb used in narratives is the
infinitive absolute.). On the other hand, most
YIQTOLs with past reference are used in contexts
where the author placed some word element before
the verb with past reference, and therefore the
verb could not be a WAYYIQTOL. If the word order
in these YIQTOL clauses was changed and the verb
was clause-initial, the verb probably would have
been a WAYYIQTOL. An example of this is 2 Samuel
12:3 (NIV) where we find three WAYYIQTOLs and 3
YIQTOLs with past reference:
but the poor man had nothing except one little
ewe lamb he had bought. He raised it (WAYYIQTOL),
and it grew up (WAYYIQTOL) with him and his
children. It shared (YIQTOL) his food, drank
(YIQTOL) from his cup and even slept (YIQTOL) in
his arms. It was (WAYYIQTOL) like a daughter to
him.
An important question is: If the WAYYIQTOLs and
the YIQTOLs are different verb forms, what is the
semantic difference between them in this passage,
and in other passages as well?
Joüon/Muraoka (II 389-90) says that WAYYIQTOL
"has roughly the same values as the QATAL form"
and "is mainly used in the sphere of the past for
a single instantaneous action" Regarding YIQTOLs
with past reference the grammar (II 367-68)
says, "In the domain of the past the yiqtol
expresses aspect only, repeated or durtive
action" and "Finally there are some yiqtols with
no iterative and durative aspect, and thus having
the value of qatal, which would be the expected
form"
(An aside: the expression "durative aspect" is a
misnomer, because durativity is not an aspectual
term but an Aktionsart term. A verb that is
marked for durativity (i.e., $YR "sing," )KL
"eat," and $TH "drink") will never cease to be
durative, regardless of whether the verb form is
YIQTOL or QATAL or WAYYIQTOL. To be punctual ( a
single instantaneous action) is also an
Aktionsart, but hardly any verb is marked for
punctuality.)
In situations with past reference the forces of
the forms are as follows according to the grammar:
WAYYIQTOL: a single instantaneous action
YIQTOL: 1) durative (better: progressive or continuing action) or
2) a single and instantaneous action
But the big question is: How can we know that
these characteristics are correct? How can we
know when a past reference YIQTOL is progressive
and when it is instantaneous? And how can we know
that a WAYYIQTOL represents instantaneous action?
I have worked with these questions for many
years, and I have not seen any evidence
whatsoever that can substantiate these
characteristics. Let us now go back and take a
closer look at 2 Samuel 12:3.
The Aktionsart of )KL and $TH is durative, and
this progressive action is made visible by the
YIQTOL form. Please note that the YIQTOLs do not
give a progressive force to the two verbs; the
verbs are "born" with this force! The third
YIQTOL is the verb $CB, which either can
indicate the entrance into a state "to lie down"
or the stat itself "to lie". A state is by
definition durative , because it continues until
it is stopped, and any part of a state is similar
to any other part or to the state as a whole. So
the third YIQTOL makes visible a state that
holds. We cannot speak of the Aktionsart of a
stative verb, because there is no action. But a
state is in the same grammatical slot as
Aktionsart.
We now come to the WAYYIQTOLs. The verb XYH "to
live" is basically a state, but stative verbs can
also have a fientive force (eg. ML) "to be full"
and "to fill"). The rendering "he raised it" is
fine, and it indicates progressive and not
instantaneous action. The verb GDL can be both
stative and fientive, but in this context it is
clearly fientive. The rendering "it grew up" is
fine, and it implies progressive and not
instantaneous action. The verb HYH expresses the
state of being, and it is per definition
durative. So neither the third WAYYIQTOL
indicates anything instantaneous; it indicates a
state that holds. So all three WAYYIQTOLs
contradict the definition of Joüon/Muraoka.
Let us now return to the YIQTOLs )KL and $TH. We
find both verbs expressed as WAYYIQTOLs in 2
Samuel 11:13 (NIV):
At David's invitation, he ate (WAYYIQTOL) and
drank (WAYYIQTOL) with him, and David made him
drunk (WAYYIQTOL).
According to the grammar's definition these three
verbs are supposed to express instantaneous
actions. But one does not become drunk
instantaneously, and to eat and to drink are just
as durative in this context as in 12:3, where
they were expressed by YIQTOLs. So, there is no
lexical, no grammatical, and no syntactical
reason why the force of the YIQTOLs in 12:3
should be different from the WAYYIQTOLs of the
same verbs in 11:13. Therefore, the choice of the
three YIQTOLs with past reference in 12:3 is not
semantic but pragmatic. It is based on the word
order. In all three cases there is a word element
before the YIQTOL, and therefore the verb cannot
be expressed as WAYYIQTOL. If the word order was
changed and the word element was put behind the
verbs, the result would have been a passage with
six WAYYIQTOLs.
The discussion above leads to the following
claim: The WAYYIQTOL and the YIQTOL are one and
the same form; the WAYYIQTOL is simply a YIQTOL
with a prefixed conjunction. Both can in past
contexts express instantaneous, progressive, and
interative actions and holding states. So my
answer to the question in the heading is that the
form that is used most frequently to express past
action is the prefix form which represent the
imperfective aspect. My challenge is: Can anyone
on the basis of linguistic arguments applied to
BH show that my claim is either wrong or doubtful?