Dear Rolf, Your dissertation sounds very interesting. Have you put it up online? Tak. Betty Chan > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 09:41:24 +0200 > Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] tense and aspect > > Dear Isaac, > > In a clause there are words, each word having its own semantic range, > gammatical forms with restricted or wider meanings, and the words have a > certain order. All these elements have a meaning potential, and communication > is to make visible a particular part of the meaning potential and make the > rest invisible for the reader or listener. The author uses different means in > order to communicate. > > One restricting factor is tense, and most languages have tenses (but not > Burmese and Mandarin). The meaning potential of a verb is that the event can > occur in the past, in the present, and in the future. When a tense is used, > the time of the action relative to a vantage point (the deictic center) is > made visible, and the rest of the meaning potential is kept invisible. You > are correct when you say that a verb form coding for tense, has the > particular tense it codes for, even when it stands alone. This means that > tenses in normal contexts have uniform references; the form "walked" shows > that the action is past, and "will walk" that it is future. The verbs of > Classical Hebrew do not have a uniform time references, but YIQTOL, > WAYYIQTOL, WEYIQTOL, QATAL, and WEQATAL can refer to past, present, and > future. Thus, Hebrew does not have tenses, and the temporal position of an > event in relations to the deictic center must be made visible by other means > than the verb forms. > > The two examples below from Isaiah illustrate that Hebrew does not have > tenses. > > Isaiah 11:8,9: "and the sucking child will play (WEQATAL) near the hole of > the cobra, and the weaned child will stretch out (QATAL) his hand over the > viper's nest. They will not do (YIQTOL) any harm or cause ruin (YIQTOL) in > all my holy mountain, because the earth will be filled (QATAL) with the > knowledge of YHWH, just as the waters cover (participle) the sea. > > In these verses there are two YIQTOLs, two QATALs, and one WEQATAL with > future reference > > Isaiah 9:6: "For a child will be born (QATAL) to us, and a son will be given > (QATAL) to us, and the government will be (WAYYIQTOL) on his shoulders. and > his name will be called (WAYYIQTOL) Wonderful Counselor...." > > In this verse there are two QATALs and two WAYYIQTOLs with future reference. > (I see no reason to render the two QATALs with English perfect, as most Bible > translations do—the "prophetic perfect" is an ad hoc argument without any > foundation from the 19th century. > > > There are also other sides of an event than temporal reference that an author > wants to make visible. For example, s/he wants to make visible that an action > is conative, ingressive, egressive, progressive, resultative, or gnomic. Or > s/he wants to make visible the end of an action, or not to make visible any > of the details of an action. The part of the event that is made visible is > reference time (RT). The imperfective and perfective aspects are used in > Hebrew in order to make particular details or no details visible for the > reader or the listener. Whereas the tense of a verb alone places the action > in the past, present, or future, the aspect will not alone signal particular > details of an action. But the words of a clause, their meaning, combination > and order together with the aspect, can make visible particular details of an > action and keep other details invisible. In addition to the linguistic > context, a knowledge of the world can also be necessary to ascertain the > particular detail of the action that the author wants to make visible. > > For example, when some grammars state that YIQTOLs with past reference > indicate "durative past," the reader is mislead. > Durativity is a semantic and not a pragmatic property. A verb that is marked > for durativity will never cease to be durative. The verb $IR (sing) will in > any context signal continuing action. To use a particular time frame (here, > the past) will not make a durative verb more durative. Moreover, the past > time frame together with the imperfective aspect can also signal a > semelfactive or instantaneous action, so we cannot at the outset know whether > a YIQTOL with past reference signals an action that continues. > > The following example illustrates the use of the Hebrew imperfective aspect. > > 1 Kings 6:1 "In the four hundred and eightieth year after the Israelites came > out of Egypt....he began to build (WAYYIQTOL) the temple of YHWH." > > What is the reason for the ingressive interpretation of the WAYYIQTOL? There > are three factors, 1) the temporal adverbial, 2) the imperfective aspect of > the WAYYIQTOL, and 3) a knowledge of the world. The last point is important. > If the temple had been completed in one year, there would not have been an > ingressive interpretation. But because we know that the building took several > years, we ascertain that it is only the beginning of the action that is made > visible. Thus, reference time (RT) in this example includes the beginning and > a small part of the continuing action. > > In order to study more Hebrew examples, I recomment my dissertation, which > analyses 2,106 passages from the Tanakh with 4,261 verbs. You will also find > numerous examples in the archives in previous discussions of tense and > aspect. > > > Best regards, > > > Rolf Furuli > Stavern > Norway > > > > > > Søndag 12. Mai 2013 17:43 CEST skrev Isaac Fried <[email protected]>: > > > I am still saying that examples from the Hebrew would help greatly in > > clarifying the difference between tense and aspect. > > > > > As I understand it, a verb is said to possess tense if it can be time > > framed even if standing alone, as a single word, say שברתי $ABAR- > > TIY = $ABAR-ATIY, 'I broke, or 'I have broken', as in Jer. 2:20. Am I > > right? > > > > > > > Now, in the example above the "suffix" -TI is, in my opinion, the > > personal pronoun אתי ATIY, an obsolete variant of אני ANIY. > > Namely, this pronominal addendum is not a universal time marker per > se, > > but is merely conventionally and specifically (ad hocly) used > > here as such. Hence, there need be no similar time reference in the > same > > (same!) pronominal suffix -TIY of the form W-$ABAR-TIY, as in > Lev. > > 26:19, which, indeed, clearly refers a future action. Am I right? > > > > Isaac Fried, Boston University > > > > On May 12, 2013, at 2:28 AM, Rolf wrote: > > > > > Tense signals the position of the event in the past, present, and > > > > > future, and aspect makes visible a part of the event and keeps the > > > rest invisible > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
