Ruth:
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 10:04 PM, Ruth Mathys <[email protected]> wrote:
> > The patterns which are clear in Proverbs 31:1031 can be applied to the
> rest
> > of Tanakh and still make sense, whereas your model doesn¹t fit that
> passage.
> > In that passage, all the verbs are used exactly the same, as far as your
> model
> > is concerned, a model according to European languages. They are with one
> > exception indefinite, present tense, imperfective aspect, indicative
> mood; the
> > one exception is subjunctive mood.
>
> I find this last sentence confusing. Following the thread of Karl's
> argument, I take him to mean that the situation being described in Prov
> 31:10-31 is one that has present-time reference ('present tense'), is
> being viewed in an open-ended way ('imperfective aspect') and is
> proverbial/generic rather than referring to a specific individual
> ('indefinite').
>
You have hit three of the things I mentioned, but how would you say modal
without using a linguistic term referring to language?
>
> Part of the problem is using terms like 'indicative mood' to talk about the
> real-world (or hypothetical-world) situation being described, when in fact
> these terms can only properly be used to describe language forms. There
> is no such thing as an 'indicative' situation, only an indicative verb form
> or construction.
So what would be the action that is expressed by the indicative mood? What
terminology would you use?
> In other words, the 'indicativeness' exists entirely within the sentence
> used to describe the situation. It isn't a property of the situation
> itself. Actually, this passage even begins with a rhetorical question, so
> even the first verb form probably isn't indicative (if that is even a
> relevant category for the Hebrew verb system).
The first verb would be grammaticalized as a subjunctive, if such a
grammaticalization existed in Biblical Hebrew, as I have repeatedly
mentioned. Instead, we find the Yiqtol form reused to indicate the
subjunctive.
> The same is true for perfective vs imperfective aspect. Even when a
> situation lends itself to being described by a particular form (e.g.
> perfective aspect is the default option for describing past time), the
> speaker usually has the option of choosing a different form to communicate
> a specific shade of meaning.
>
Again we find the ancient Hebrews used both the Qatal and Yiqtol in
contexts that communicate sometimes the perfective aspect, sometimes the
imperfective aspect. Therefore these forms don’t grammaticalize for aspect
either.
As for aspect, was that covered by a couple of the binyanim?
>
> It's true that terms like 'present tense' often are used
> rather indiscriminately. It is sometimes used to refer to a morphological
> form,
> and sometimes to the temporal reference of the verb. I wish there were
> standardised terms to keep the two concepts distinct, but we're not there
> yet.
>
> Anyway, so I don't think it's legitimate to say that all the verbs are
> "indefinite, present tense, imperfective aspect, indicative mood". It is
> only legitimate to list the different verb *forms* used (some are yiqtol,
> some are qatal, some are wayyiqtol, etc.), give an *opinion* about the
> overall situation being referred to (a generic description of a generic
> ideal woman) and then systematically relate the various verb forms to
> that situation.
>
OK, the situation describes actions that, in other languages that
grammaticalize for these actions, would be indefinite, present tense,
indicative mood, imperfective aspect. But instead we find Qatal and Yiqtol
conjugated verbs pretty much equally distributed, showing that these forms
grammaticalize for none of them.
By my own admission, I’ve been away from a linguistic description of
grammar for decades, so it’s no surprise as I dredge though long forgotten
concepts that I misuse linguistic terms in grammar, so my question becomes,
is the above paragraph a correct way to describe what the evidence presents?
>
> The argument seems to be that since the situation is generic and
> present-time (or timeless?), the variation of verb forms must be due to
> something other than tense or aspect. The trick is to then formulate a
> positive explanation of the variation -- what are the different meanings
> that the writer can evoke (using alternative verb forms) to describe the
> same general situation?
>
> In any case, why assume that Prov 31:10-31 is generic?
This is not an assumption, rather a conclusion. A conclusion based on
reading the passage for meaning, what does the author communicate in this
passage?
> John A. Cook in "Genericity, Tense, and Verbal Patterns in the Sentence
> Literature of Proverbs" (sorry, no idea of the complete reference) argues
> that "... qatal along with the few examples of wayyiqtol in Proverbs may
> portray past tense anecdotes from which the reader is left to extract a
> general maxim". Instead of making an a priori decision about the situation
> being described by a particular passage and then trying to read the verb
> forms based on that decision, it is just as valid to try assigning
> particular values to each verb form and then see if the passage can be read
> meaningfully (is there a genre we haven't considered yet?).
>
John A. Cook, whoever he is, appears to be trying to shoehorn the data to
make it fit his model, rather than using the data to mold his model. But as
Rolf and others can testify, it’s not only in Proverbs, but throughout
Tanakh that these forms don’t grammaticalize for tense, and this passage
among others show that they don’t grammaticalize for aspect either, and
only sometimes is the Yiqtol form reused to indicate mood.
>
> Ruth Mathys
>
Karl W. Randolph.
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
