Post by R.J. Furuli » Thu May 24, 2018 5:47 am
Dear Mark,
The issue in my view is not modality, but rather semantics versus pragmatics, which is a neglected field in Hebrew studies. When we analyze a clause, and we come up with a certain interpretation of the verb, the question is whether the force of the verb that we see is an intrinsic factor of the verb itselc (=semantic meaning), or whehter the force is based on the context (=conversational pragmaic implicature).
I argue in my doctoral dissertation that Classical Hebrew has just two conjugations: yiqtol, wayyiqtol, and weyiqtol represent the imperfective conjugation, and qatal and weqatal represents the perfective conjugation. If this is correct, it means that וַיִּשְׁבֹּת֙ in Genesis 2:2 and וַיְבָ֤רֶךְ in 2:3 is just as imperfective as יַֽעֲלֶ֣ה in 2:6. However, the pragmatics are different, because the verbs in 2:2 and 2:3 have the prefixed conjunction waw (and). And here is the fallacy, in my view. In narratives, one event follows the other in succession, and to express that in Hebrew, "and" (waw) is used: he ..., and... he... and...he... and... This waw that is a pragmatic signal of consecusion is interpreted semantically, and it is believed that this simple conjunction changes the force of the verb to the very opposite of what it is without the prefixed conjunction. In Phoenician, the narraive verb is infinitive absolute, and the prefixed waw to this form also is a pragmatic sinal of consecution; it does not change the infinitive absolute to something else.
Imperfectivity is a subjective viewpoint, and it makes visible a part of the action with details visible, while perfectivity usually do not make details visible. I will translate 2:2, 3, and 6 in the following ways:
2:2b: "and he continued to rest."
2.3a "and God continued to bless the seventh day."
2:6a "but a mist was ascending from the earth."
Are the actions is the three examples completed and terminated? The verbs do not tell. The writer of Genesis looks back into the past, and the setting is past. But suppose that 2:2b was written down a few hours after God started his rest. Can we then say that his rest did not still continue? What if the account was written down an month after God started to rest? Was it then completed? We do not know. So, my point is that in a past setting imperfective verbs makes visible a small part of the action of the verbs, but the verbs themselves do not tell us whether the actions are completed when they are written down. However, the actionsart of a verb, its lexical meaning, and the context can together show that a past action was terminated at the time of writing. In naratives most actions are terminated at the time of writing.
Best regards,
Rolf J. Furuli
Stavern
Norway
Dear Mark,
The issue in my view is not modality, but rather semantics versus pragmatics, which is a neglected field in Hebrew studies. When we analyze a clause, and we come up with a certain interpretation of the verb, the question is whether the force of the verb that we see is an intrinsic factor of the verb itselc (=semantic meaning), or whehter the force is based on the context (=conversational pragmaic implicature).
I argue in my doctoral dissertation that Classical Hebrew has just two conjugations: [i]yiqtol[/i], [i]wayyiqtol[/i], and [i]weyiqtol[/i] represent the imperfective conjugation, and [i]qatal[/i] and [i]weqatal[/i] represents the perfective conjugation. If this is correct, it means that וַיִּשְׁבֹּת֙ in Genesis 2:2 and וַיְבָ֤רֶךְ in 2:3 is just as imperfective as יַֽעֲלֶ֣ה in 2:6. However, the pragmatics are different, because the verbs in 2:2 and 2:3 have the prefixed conjunction [i]waw[/i] (and). And here is the fallacy, in my view. In narratives, one event follows the other in succession, and to express that in Hebrew, "and" (waw) is used: he ..., and... he... and...he... and... This [i]waw[/i] that is a pragmatic signal of consecusion is interpreted semantically, and it is believed that this simple conjunction changes the force of the verb to the very opposite of what it is without the prefixed conjunction. In Phoenician, the narraive verb is infinitive absolute, and the prefixed [i]waw[/i] to this form also is a pragmatic sinal of consecution; it does not change the infinitive absolute to something else.
Imperfectivity is a subjective viewpoint, and it makes visible a part of the action with details visible, while perfectivity usually do not make details visible. I will translate 2:2, 3, and 6 in the following ways:
2:2b: "and he continued to rest."
2.3a "and God continued to bless the seventh day."
2:6a "but a mist was ascending from the earth."
Are the actions is the three examples completed and terminated? The verbs do not tell. The writer of Genesis looks back into the past, and the setting is past. But suppose that 2:2b was written down a few hours after God started his rest. Can we then say that his rest did not still continue? What if the account was written down an month after God started to rest? Was it then completed? We do not know. So, my point is that in a past setting imperfective verbs makes visible a small part of the action of the verbs, but the verbs themselves do not tell us whether the actions are completed when they are written down. However, the actionsart of a verb, its lexical meaning, and the context can together show that a past action was terminated at the time of writing. In naratives most actions are terminated at the time of writing.
Best regards,
Rolf J. Furuli
Stavern
Norway