With apologies if this posts twice. John was having problems posting. Please direct responses to him, not me : )
James ________________________________ James Spinti E-mail marketing, Book Sales Division Eisenbrauns, Good books for more than 35 years Specializing in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Studies jspinti at eisenbrauns dot com Web: http://www.eisenbrauns.com Phone: 260-445-3118 Fax: 574-269-6788 Begin forwarded message: > > >> From: John Cook <[email protected]> >> Date: December 12, 2012, 10:42:30 AM EST >> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >> Subject: Tense >> >> **Forgive my tardy taking up of this thread; I had previously submitted this >> from the wrong e-mail and it bounced!** >> >> Dear Rolf, Frank, et al, >> >> I watched for some time from the sideline (yes, I continue to be a b-hebrew >> lurker), but I could not resist finally jumping in now that we have gotten >> beyond the inane theoretical discussion on which some will never agree >> because common definitions are not agreed upon (I'll leave that one alone >> because there is no winning that argument). >> >> Let me respond briefly to some of Rolf's comments on this specific passage, >> as it is generally instructive: >> >>> RF: If you expect the readers to understand what you write, in this case >>> you must define "tense." I agree that the reference is past, and why can we >>> say that? Because 2:19 is a part of a piece of narrative. And the verbs >>> that carry the action forward in narratives have by definition past >>> reference. But these verbs need not have past tense or have the perfective >>> aspect; In Phoenician, infinitive absolutes are used as narrative verbs, >>> and they neither are tenses nor aspects. I analyze the verse in the >>> following way: The setting is the creation of animals and birds, bringing >>> them to Adam, and the naming of these. All this must have taken some time, >>> as you observe. >> >> >> This is a wonderfully clear illustration of the viciously circular reasoning >> we need to avoid to make headway: of course the verb in 2:19 has a past >> reference because it is part of a narrative, which is past by definition; >> and how do we know that it is a past narrative, because the verbs that make >> it past indicate that to us (so would Weinrich argue too!). Can any deny >> that this is viciously circular and begs the whole question of what the verb >> forms actually indicate since presumably we can tell this is narrative apart >> from the verbs but yet discourse analysis tells us the verbs indicate the >> type of discourse. >> >>> My translation of 2:19 is as follows: "YHWH God continued to form >>> (WAYYIQTOL, Qal) from the ground every animal and every flying creature of >>> the heavens; and he continued to bring (WAYYIQTOL Hifil) them to the man to >>> see (infinitive copnstruct) what he would call (YIQTOL, Qal) each one. And >>> whatever the man called (YIQTOL, Qal) it, each living soul, that was its >>> name." >>> >>> In the first WAYYIQTOL, reference time (RT) intersects event time (ET) in >>> the middle; a part of ET whith continuing or iterative action is made >>> visible. Exactly the same intersection is seen in the second WAYYIQTOL. >>> The first YIQTOL is modal, and therefore does not have any intersection. >>> The second YIQTOL has a singular subject and object and the verb is >>> semelfactive. So, RT intersects ET after its end, which means that it has a >>> resultative force; a part of the resultant state is visible. The verse >>> contains 4 imperfective verbs, three having past reference (but not past >>> tense), and one i modal. >> >> >> You force your preconceived notions onto the text in a way no more >> acceptable than the old rabbinic explanation for how this account can appear >> next to that of Genesis 1: to wit, God "RE-FORMED" all the creatures for >> Adam to name because the first set (Genesis 1) ran away! Here we have a >> simple narrative sequence of wayyiqtols followed by two modal yiqtols: >> >> 'Yhwh God FORMED out of the ground every animal of the field and every bird >> of the air and he BROUGHT them to the man to see what he MIGHT call them; >> and whatever the man WOULD call them that was/is its name.' >> >> A few comments: (1) the initial two verbs are simply past narratives (yes, >> past tense, grammaticalized temporal location as prior to the speaker's >> deictic center and then, once the narrative sequence is begun the verbs >> pragmatically express simple successive events (see Smith 2003); (2) the >> first yiqtol makes perfectly good sense as an irrealis mood 'might'—i.e., >> God gave the man the chance to call the creatures whatever he wanted to; (3) >> the final yiqtol then expresses what the man wanted to call them (i.e., >> would = past of will = volitive expression not tense); (4) the final null >> copula clause seems ambiguous: for the ancient reader these names are the >> ones that are still used in their own reference time, so it might be better >> present than past reference here. >> >>> The imperfective force of the WAYYIQTOL FORM is clearly seen in 2:21 where >>> one WAYYIQTOL intersects another WAYYIQTOL: "Then YHWH God caused a deep >>> sleep to fall (WAYYIQTOL) upon the man. And while he was sleeping >>> (WAYYIQTOL), he took (WAYYIQTOL) one of his ribs, and closed up (WAYYIQTOL) >>> the flesh over its place." >>> >>> The third WAYYIQTOL expresses a state "while he was sleeping" and this >>> state is intersected by the next WAYYIQTOL "he took one of the man's >>> ribs." A parallel clause is: While John was reading the paper, Kate >>> entered the room." Such a sentence is used by Comrie and others to >>> demonstrate that the English participle FORM is imperfective. >> >> >> No, it is not clearly seen; here you miss that the stative verbs may easily >> fit within a narrative sequence by their ambiguous stative-inchoative >> interpretation: >> >> 'Yhwh God MADE a deep sleep FALL upon the man and he FELL ASLEEP (inchoative >> past narrative) and he took one of the ribs from the man and he closed the >> flesh over it.' >> >> The intersection of time here comes from the fact that 'sleep' is not fully >> bound by the past-tense, perfective-aspect wayyiqtol (se Smith 1999; Cook >> 2004, 2012); but the narrative sequence continues to hold to the >> irreversibility principle that defines narrative: the events cannot be >> reported in the reverse order without a change in meaning (i.e., sleep fell >> first, then man fell asleep, then God took a rib, then he closed it up; it >> cannot happen with the same meaning in any other order). >> >> You need to do reading beyond Comrie and Olsen so as to discover the gradual >> nuancing of these things in linguistics; unlike the field of biblical >> studies, dates of publications really matter in linguistics! >> >> References: >> Cook, John A. >> 2004 The Semantics of Verbal Pragmatics: Clarifying the Roles of Wayyiqtol >> and Weqatal in Biblical Hebrew Prose. Journal of Semitic Studies 49/2: >> 247–73. >> 2012 Time and the Biblical Hebrew Verb: the Expression of Tense, Aspect, and >> Modality in Biblical Hebrew. Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic. >> Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. >> >> Smith, Carlota S. >> 1999 Activities: States or Events? Linguistics and Philosophy 22: 479–508. >> 2003 Modes of Discourse: The Local Structure of Texts. Cambridge Studies in >> Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. >> >> >> John >> >> John A. Cook >> Associate Professor of Old Testament >> Asbury Theological Seminary >> 204 N. Lexington Ave. >> Wilmore, KY 40390 >> 859-858-2292 >> >> On Dec 10, 2012, at 8:01 AM, [email protected] wrote: >> >>> Message: 1 >>> Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2012 18:00:23 +0100 >>> From: "Rolf" <[email protected]> >>> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Tense >>> To: [email protected] >>> Message-ID: <368f-50c4c380-f-d856e20@255742708> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >>> >>> Dear Frank, >>> >>> I will read your book, and you should read my dissertation, because it is >>> good for a lecturer to be aware of the different scholarly approaches to >>> the Hebrew verbal system that exists. Many list members do not read German, >>> so I will make some comments before I have read your book. Now I understand >>> a little more of your model, but not all of it. It reminds me somewhat of >>> the "Textlinguistik" of Harald Weinrich (Tempus: Besprochende und Erz?lte >>> Welt (1964), but there are differences as well. It also reminds me of the >>> discourse linguistics of different other auhors. Both of these systems are >>> unassailable (admitted by Weinrich); there are no controls, because the >>> focus is on chunks of texts and not on words or word forms. >>> >>> You have indirectly answered my question regarding aspect, that the >>> conjugations are not aspectual, but that aspect is connected with one or >>> more clauses. But you have not defined "tense." >>> >>> You say: >>> "In this text it is very hard to believe that the finite verbal form >>> ????????? is not tense." >>> >>> RF: If you expect the readers to understand what you write, in this case >>> you must define "tense." I agree that the reference is past, and why can we >>> say that? Because 2:19 is a part of a piece of narrative. And the verbs >>> that carry the action forward in narratives have by definition past >>> reference. But these verbs need not have past tense or have the perfective >>> aspect; In Phoenician, infinitive absolutes are used as narrative verbs, >>> and they neither are tenses nor aspects. I analyze the verse in the >>> following way: The setting is the creation of animals and birds, bringing >>> them to Adam, and the naming of these. All this must have taken some time, >>> as you observe. >>> >>> My translation of 2:19 is as follows: "YHWH God continued to form >>> (WAYYIQTOL, Qal) from the ground every animal and every flying creature of >>> the heavens; and he continued to bring (WAYYIQTOL Hifil) them to the man to >>> see (infinitive copnstruct) what he would call (YIQTOL, Qal) each one. And >>> whatever the man called (YIQTOL, Qal) it, each living soul, that was its >>> name." >>> >>> In the first WAYYIQTOL, reference time (RT) intersects event time (ET) in >>> the middle; a part of ET whith continuing or iterative action is made >>> visible. Exactly the same intersection is seen in the second WAYYIQTOL. >>> The first YIQTOL is modal, and therefore does not have any intersection. >>> The second YIQTOL has a singular subject and object and the verb is >>> semelfactive. So, RT intersects ET after its end, which means that it has a >>> resultative force; a part of the resultant state is visible. The verse >>> contains 4 imperfective verbs, three having past reference (but not past >>> tense), and one i modal. >>> >>> The imperfective force of the WAYYIQTOL FORM is clearly seen in 2:21 where >>> one WAYYIQTOL intersects another WAYYIQTOL: "Then YHWH God caused a deep >>> sleep to fall (WAYYIQTOL) upon the man. And while he was sleeping >>> (WAYYIQTOL), he took (WAYYIQTOL) one of his ribs, and closed up (WAYYIQTOL) >>> the flesh over its place." >>> >>> The third WAYYIQTOL expresses a state "while he was sleeping" and this >>> state is intersected by the next WAYYIQTOL "he took one of the man's >>> ribs." A parallel clause is: While John was reading the paper, Kate >>> entered the room." Such a sentence is used by Comrie and others to >>> demonstrate that the English participle FORM is imperfective. >>> >>> I do not understand how we can know the nuances of a dead language if its >>> conjugations cannot be semantically distinguished. This is illustrated by >>> 1), 2) and 3) below. >>> >>> 1) Jill reached the peak. >>> >>> 2) Jill had reached the peak. >>> >>> 3) Jill was reaching the peak. >>> >>> If English was a dead language that we tried to understand, and we did not >>> which verb FORMS expressed aspect and which tense, we could neither >>> distinguish the time reference of the three clauses, neither their nuances. >>> If there was a context, we could possibly know whether the reference was >>> past or future; but not if a clause lacked a temporal context. (This is the >>> case in many poetic texts in the Tanakh). If semantic meaning was expressed >>> by the verb form, each single sentence could be understood: The verb of 1) >>> is simple past and therefore is a tense; the verb of 2) is pre-past, and is >>> a combination of past tense and the perfective aspect. The verb of 3) is a >>> participle, and because we know the the verb FORM participle is >>> imperfective, and the verb is semelfactive, the meaning is that Jill was on >>> the point of reaching the peak, but had not yet reached it. So, RT >>> intersects ET immediately before the reaching event. Even if we had a >>> context, it would have been impossible to k >>> now the nuances of 3) if we did not know that the participle had a >>> particular semantic meaning, that it was imperfective. >>> >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> >>> Rolf Furuli >>> Stavern >>> Norway >> >> >> >> _______________________________ >> John A. Cook >> Associate Professor Old Testament >> Asbury Theological Seminary
_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
