Dear Nir,
I got the impression that you rejected aspect in Hebrew, and I regret
than this was a wrong impression. Thank you for this clarification.
Your remarks are in no way offensive. This is a very long post, and I
am now approaching the end of this thread.
I define aspect in the following way (without using the technical
terms "event time" and "reference time":
English aspect:
The imperfective aspect (expressed by the present participle) make
visible action in progress. Neither the beginning nor the end of the
action is made visible.
The perfective aspect (expressed by the perfect) make visible
completed actions. Neither the beginning nor the action in progress
is made visible.
Hebrew aspect:
The imperfective aspect (expressed by YIQTOL, WAYYIQTOL, AND
WEYIQTOL) is a close-up view of a small section of the event where
the progressive action is made visible. The perfective aspect
(expressed by QATAL and WEQATAL) is a view, as if from some distance,
of a part of, or of the whole event, where the progressive action is
not made visible.
This means that the imperfective aspect can express:
1) Conative situations (attempts not carried through).
2) ingressive situations (the beginning and a small part of
progressive action is made visible).
3) Progressive situations (the action continues).
4) Egressive situations (progressive actions immediately before the
end is made visible).
5) Resultative situations (the end of the action is reached, and the
resultant action is made visible).
6) One action/state inside a continuing action/state.
The perfective aspect can express:
1) Ingressive actions in states (the entrance into the state).
2) Constative situations (a greater part of the event is made visible).
3) Constative situations (the whole event with beginning and end is
made visible).
4) Perfect (the end is made visible).
Before I discuss Genesis 1:10, I will make some comments and use some
examples. In a recent post, Randall used the expression, "a better
masking of a perfective movement verb." Here Randall makes a very
important point. In prose texts, the temporal reference of the verbs
are rather easy to find, but in poetry the temporal reference can be
difficult to find. Perhaps the temporal reference is as much as 70
-80% of the clauses in the Tanakh rather easily can be found; in
these cases the temporal reference is not masked. Because aspect is a
subjective portrayal of an objective event (I think Randall agrees
with this description), it is much more difficult to see the true
nature of the aspect of a clause. I estimate that in less than 5 % of
the 49,000 finite verbs of the Tanakh can we see the nature of the
aspect quite clearly, or clearly. In the other instances the nature
of the aspect is masked.
The Hebrew grammarians from the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries have
all made the fundamental error of overlooking two basic linguistic
facts, 1) there is a difference between temporal reference and tense,
and 2) In most passages we cannot see the real nature of the aspect.
What has been done, is to force our understanding of modern
languages, such as English, upon Classical Hebrew. This has been done
by assuming that because narrative in most cases in modern aspectual
languages is expressed by perfective aspects, this must be true in
Hebrew as well. Therefore, WAYYIQTOL must be perfective. And further,
the English definition of aspect, completed/uncompleted has been
applied to the Hebrew verbs. Others have concluded that because so
many WAYYIQTOLs have past reference, WAYYIQTOL represent past tense.
This has led to linguistic anarchy-seemingly, the Hebrew verbal
system does not fit anything.
The only way to remedy this situation is to look for the few examples
where the nature of the aspect is clear, and on this basis draw
conclusions as to the nature of Hebrew aspect. In such a study we
need to find which parts of a clause do what. We need to find the
lexical meaning of the verb, how definiteness/indefiniteness,
singularity/plurality, adverbials, our knowledge of the world, and
other factors contribute to the meaning of the clause (and the
nature of the aspect). In order to find the nature of the aspect, we
need to find how reference time intersects event time. In order to
find the temporal reference, we need to find the deictic center (the
vantage point from which an action is viewed), and to find whether
reference time comes before or after the deictic center, or
coincides with this center.
Please look at example 1). What is the deictic center? Evidently
speech time, because the people are speaking to the king. Where is
reference time? In other words, what is made visible of the dying
event? Because of our knowledge of the world (the context), we know
that Jeremiah was still alive. This means that reference time cannot
come before the deictic center, but it must come after it. Thus, the
author wanted to make visible on of two things, 1) the WAYYIQTOL has
future reference, or 2) the WAYYIQTOL is egressive (a part
immediately before the end is made visible ("on the point of dying").
1) Jeremiah 38:9 "the prophet... whom they have thrown (QATAL) into
the cistern, and he is on the point of dying (WAYYIQTOL)" The last
clause can also be translated as " and he will die (WAYYIQTOL).
Please consider example 2). Where is the deictic center? It must be
speech time. Where is reference time? The event time is the time it
took to use the secret arts, and reference time intersects a point
immediately before event time. Thus, the event is conative.
2) Ex 8:14 "But the magicians tried to produce (WAYYIQTOL+
infinitive) ) gnats by their secret arts."
On the basis of numerous examples of WAYYIQTOL and YIQTOL showing the
6 expressions of the imperfective aspect listed above, I conclude
that WAYYIQTOL and YIQTOL both represent the imperfective aspect.
Applying the imperfective interpretation of WAYYIQTOL to Genesis
1:10, we may ask: If the WAYYIQTOL of QR) is imperfective, how
should we understand it? What does the author to make visible. The
deictic center is speech time (reporting time). And reference time
occurred before the deictic center. But where does reference time
intersect event time (=the calling event, from beginning to end)?
This verse is in the category where both the aspects of the QATAL
and WAYYIQTOL of the same verb are masked. My translation of the
Phoenician Karatepe inscription may throw some light on the use of
verb forms in Genesis 1:10. In this narrative inscription of 40
lines we find 2 YIQTOLS, 12 QATALS,, 6 WEQATALs, and 21 infinitive
absolutes. The infinitive absolutes have the same function as the
WAYYIQTOLs in Hebrew narrative, and 16 of the infinitive absolutes
have the conjunction WAW prefixed.
"I am Azitiwada, blessed by Baal, servant of Baal, king of the
Danunians, made powerful (QATAL). Baal made (QATAL) me father and
mother for the Danunians. I revived (infinitive abs.) the...
Danunians. I extended ( infinitive abs) the land of the valley of
Adana from the rising of the sun to its setting. And in my days the
Danunians had (WEQATAL) everything good, and plenty of grain and good
food. And I filled (WAW+ infinitive abs) the granaries of Pahar. and
I aquired (WAW+ infinitive abs) horse upon horse, and shield upon
shield, and army upon army, by the good will of Baal and the gods.
And I shattered (WEQATAL) the enemies, and I drove out
(WAW+infinitive abs) every wicked person that was (QATAL) in the
land. And I put the house of my Lord in good order (WAW+infinitive
abs), and I acted with kindness (WAW+infinitive abs) toward the
offspring of my Lord. And I let him sit (WAW+infinitive abs) on his
fathers throne. and I made peace (WAW+infinitive abs) with every
king. And every king treated me (QATAL) as a father, because of my
righteousness, and because of my wisdom, and because of my good
heart. And I built (WAW+infinitive abs) strong fortresses in all the
remote areas on the borders, in those places where there were (QATAL)
wicked men. (There is more text, but I stop here.)"In order to see
Genesis 1:10 in light of the Karatepe inscription, we may ask? How
shall we understand the infinitive absolutes, particularly the 16
with prefixed WAW? Their deictic center is speech time, and their
reference time comes before the deictic center. Thus, the reference
is past. No one has claimed that an infinitive absolute is a tense or
an aspect. Some of the clauses are durative, dynamic, and telic
(e.g., build a house), and others are durative and dynamic (e.g.,
treated me as a father). Apart from the past reference we can say
that the infinitive absolutes make a part of, or the whole action
visible. More we cannot know. But interestingly, the infinitive
absolutes (which functions like WAYYIQTOLs) occur together with
QATALs, and there is absolute no reason why we should claim that the
infinite infinitive absolute has the same meaning as the finite QATAL.
The imperfective WAYYIQTOL in Genesis 1:10 has past reference (the
deictic center is speech time, and refernece time comes before the
deictic center). I see the following possibilities: Example 3) may
stress the continuing and open-ended state of having the name "earth"
after the act of calling is finished. This is often the meaning of
Piel verbs. If one of the three possibilities is correct, a detailed
part of the action is made visible, and it is not necessary to do
that again. Thus, the following QATAL of the same verb simply is
constative.
1) Ingressive: "And God began to call the dry land "earth."
2) Progressive: "And God continued to call the dry land "earth."
3) Resultative: "And God called the dry land "earth."
Best regards,
Rolf Furuli
My interpretation of Genesis 1:10, is that the WAYYIQTOL of QR) is
resultative: God gave the names "earth"
>>>In Norwegian we have the saying: "What is
obscurely expressed, is obscurely thought." When
list-members use grammatical terms, even
rejecting some of them in Hebrew, and they refuse
to define their terms, the only conclusion I can
draw, is that their terms cannot be defined in
scientific terms, and that they simply do not
know what they are talking about.
rolf,
actually, i made it clear at the outset i did not know much
about aspect theory. it will really be difficult for me to
suggest a comprehensive definition of it, as you ask.
maybe, as carl suggested, you can propose one if you think
it is necessary at this point.
i also clarified i do not reject aspect, or any other grammatical
theory, in hebrew, as you try to make it look. though i do believe
aspect, under any conceivable definition, was not the major
factor in deciding this particular issue, qatal vs yiqtol.
i was also, perhaps wrongly, interpreting a "perfect tense" as
used by you and others here as a tense which suffers ONLY perfect
action. my error was pointed out by chavoux, who defined a perfect
tense (in the BH context, and if i understood him correctly)
as a tense which suffers both past and present actions.
consequently, i sent an email trying to find a common
basis for further discussion.
there was no need to get personal about it. but if you find my
remarks offensive, i apologize.
still, i think you avoid explaining gen 1:10 under your theory.
regards
nir cohen
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
