Dear Jerry, Here is a summary of my conclusions:
1) My basic premise is a clear distinction between semantic meaning (uncancellable meaning) and conversational pragmatic implicature, that is, a distinction between the meaning of a verb form that do not change, and the meaning that is derived from the context. The distinction between semantics and pragmatics is elementary in other linguistic studies, but not in studies of the Semitic languages. 2) Tense can be defined as "grammaticalization of location in time," which means that tense is an intrinsic property of verb forms that do not change because of the context. 3) Narrative verbs have by definition past reference, but the verb form used in narrative contexts need not represent grammaticalized location in the past. One example is Phoenician, where the infinitive absolute is used as the narrative verb, but no one would say that the infinitive absolute has an intrinsic past tense. Another example is Ugaritic, where the same verbs expressed with the same grammatical form are used with past reference in one account and future reference in another account. 4) The narrative verb used in Hebrew is the so-called WAYYIQTOL. According to my analysis of the 14,536 WAYYIQTOLs in the Tanakh, 93.1% have past reference and 6.9% have non-past reference. Because of the high percentage of past references, most scholars conclude that the WAYYIQTOL either IS past tense or IS the perfective aspect. These conclusions are problematic because: a) the WAYIQTOLs with non-past references occur in normal contexts, and a tense should have a uniform temporal reference. b) there are no traces in the Tanakh of a grammaticalization process that would lead a prefix form with the prefixed conjunction WAW to become the very opposite of the prefix form without WAW. c) No one has been able to explain how the element WAY- (WAW) changed the meaning of the form with WAY- to the very opposite of the form without WAY. d) Such a change of meaning to the very opposite because of a prefixed conjunction is unprecedented in the languages of the world. 5) Because of 4 a), b), c) and d), there are no reasons to view the WAYYIQTOL as different from the YIQTOL form as far as meaning is concerned. So, just as infinitive absolute is the narrative form in Phoenician, and the prefix form (YAQTUL(U) is the narrative form in Ugaritic, the prefixform YIQTOL is the narrative form in Classical Hebrew. 6) But how can the function and use of the WAY + YIQTOL be explained? The simple explanation is that narrative texts express sequences of actions in the past, one action following the other, and the element that is driving the consecution is the conjunction WAW. The Hebrew writers, more than writers in any language that I know of, had a preference for this conjunction—"and this happened, and then this happened, and then this happened...." The gemination and stress pattern of the WAYYIQTOL form is based on the Phonetic rules of the Masoretes and are nothing special. So the form can morphologically speaking be reduced to a YIQTOL with the prefixed conjunction WAW. 7) The real obstacle to accepting that the WAYYIQTOL as a YIQTOL, is that YIQTOL is believed to code for future and present or for the imperfective aspect, and how can such functions corroborate past reference? a) Before we exclude imperfective verbs in Hebrew narrative, remember the narrative verbs Phoenician and Ugaritic. b) The real problem is that most aspectual definitions are simply taken out of the blue; they are philosophical and vague, and they do not seem to fit a system where imperfective forms can be narrative forms. If we instead of choosing one of the many aspectual definitions, analyze the Hebrew verbs in the light of the the basic linguistic properties, reference time, event time, and deictic center, we may see that imperfective verbs have properties that fit narratives. 8) The conclusion of all the previous points is that the reason why WAYYIQTOL so often occurs in past context is pragmatic and not semantic. Best regards, Rolf Furuli Stavern Norway. Tirsdag 14. Mai 2013 17:17 CEST skrev Jerry Shepherd <[email protected]>: > Hi List, > > > > In our recent discussions about “meaning,” one of the things that Karl and > I discussed was the wayyiqtol. Without starting a debate or any kind of > lengthy discussion, I’d like to know what some of the various scholars on > the list think the function of the wayyiqtol is. I know that Rolf has done > extensive work here, and I’d love to see a short summary of his conclusions > here. And I seem to remember that George has shared his views here as well. > In any case, I’m not looking for a debate, but just a survey of the range > of opinions as to what wayyiqtol’s function is. > > > > Here’s my own brief summary. I think that the most likely basic > significance of wayyiqtol is that of indicating consecutiveness, > succession, or sequencing. This succession can take place in a discourse > that relates either past, present, or future events. But it is narrative, > more than any other genre, that makes the most use of the idea of > succession, and therefore makes the most use of the wayyiqtol. Because of > this usage and the close association of narrative and wayyiqtol, the form, > for all practical purposes, in narrative, comes to indicate past tense. This > is so much the case that individual narratives can start with the > wayyiqtol, and even in non-narrative texts, the wayyiqtol can indicate a > past event, even without a sequence of verbs before it. Thus I am in > agreement with Joüon-Muraoka that “the wayyiqtol form became so strongly > associated with its past tense function that it was even used at the > beginning, or at least at the relative beginning of some narratives.” (sect > 118b). > > > > Again, no debate, or even back and forth discussion, just a survey of > opinions. > > > > Blessings, > > > > Jerry > > Jerry Shepherd > Taylor Seminary > Edmonton, Alberta > [email protected] _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
