Genesis 2:6 and the aspects
Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2018 1:34 am
Dear friends,
Genesis 2:5 was recently discussed. I follow up with the next verse, looking at the aspects.
My translation is: But a mist was ascending (יַֽעֲלֶ֣ה) from the earth, and it watered (וְהִשְׁקָ֖ה) the whole surface of the ground."
The reason for the yiqtol is that a word is preceding. If the verb was sentence initial, it would have been written as wayyiqtol. There are several hundred examples of this system. Both yiqtol and wayyiqtol are imperfective, and the reason for the choice of form is word order—an element preceding the verb or not.
Is the action of the yiqtol completed or uncompleted? In order to answer we need to look at the deictic center (C). The deictic center is the vantage point from which an action is seen. Actions in English before (C) have past tense, actions after (C) has future tense, and actions contemporanous with (C) have present reference (not "present tense" because present can be used for past, present and futture, and therefore is not a tense). In most cases (C) is speech time, or the time of writing. But in the so-called relative tenses (C) can be a point in the past or in the future.
What is (C) in Genesis 2:6? The time of the writing of the account. The situation occurred before man, and therefore the action of the yiqtol was completed. The other verb is a consecutive perfect, and the action expressed by this verb also was completed at (C). This shows that consecutive perfect does not have any intrinsic future force—in this case it refers to the past.
The verse also demonstrate the differences between the Hebrew aspects. The aspects do not give any signal as to the temporal reference (not "tense, because Hebrew does not have tenses), and the aspects do not tell whether an action was completed or not at (C). Both temporal reference and completeness must be construed on the basis of the context. The aspects are subjective viewpoints and not objective expressions, as for example aktionsart. The imperfective aspect expressed by yiqtol, wayyiqtol, and weyiqtol, makes visible a part of progressive action, usually with details visible—here: a "piece" of mist ascended, and then another "piece" of mist followed. The perfective aspect represented by qatal and weqatal makes a part of an action, or the whole action, visibile, as if seen from som distance, and details are not visible—here: the ground was watered, and details are not seen.
NB: the term "durative past" as a definition of yiqtols with past reference is a misnomer, because durativity is an aktionsart property and not an aspectual property. A word that is marked for durativity, such as שׁיר, will always be durative regardless of temporal reference or aspect.
Best regards,
Rolf
Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway
Genesis 2:5 was recently discussed. I follow up with the next verse, looking at the aspects.
My translation is: But a mist was ascending (יַֽעֲלֶ֣ה) from the earth, and it watered (וְהִשְׁקָ֖ה) the whole surface of the ground."
The reason for the yiqtol is that a word is preceding. If the verb was sentence initial, it would have been written as wayyiqtol. There are several hundred examples of this system. Both yiqtol and wayyiqtol are imperfective, and the reason for the choice of form is word order—an element preceding the verb or not.
Is the action of the yiqtol completed or uncompleted? In order to answer we need to look at the deictic center (C). The deictic center is the vantage point from which an action is seen. Actions in English before (C) have past tense, actions after (C) has future tense, and actions contemporanous with (C) have present reference (not "present tense" because present can be used for past, present and futture, and therefore is not a tense). In most cases (C) is speech time, or the time of writing. But in the so-called relative tenses (C) can be a point in the past or in the future.
What is (C) in Genesis 2:6? The time of the writing of the account. The situation occurred before man, and therefore the action of the yiqtol was completed. The other verb is a consecutive perfect, and the action expressed by this verb also was completed at (C). This shows that consecutive perfect does not have any intrinsic future force—in this case it refers to the past.
The verse also demonstrate the differences between the Hebrew aspects. The aspects do not give any signal as to the temporal reference (not "tense, because Hebrew does not have tenses), and the aspects do not tell whether an action was completed or not at (C). Both temporal reference and completeness must be construed on the basis of the context. The aspects are subjective viewpoints and not objective expressions, as for example aktionsart. The imperfective aspect expressed by yiqtol, wayyiqtol, and weyiqtol, makes visible a part of progressive action, usually with details visible—here: a "piece" of mist ascended, and then another "piece" of mist followed. The perfective aspect represented by qatal and weqatal makes a part of an action, or the whole action, visibile, as if seen from som distance, and details are not visible—here: the ground was watered, and details are not seen.
NB: the term "durative past" as a definition of yiqtols with past reference is a misnomer, because durativity is an aktionsart property and not an aspectual property. A word that is marked for durativity, such as שׁיר, will always be durative regardless of temporal reference or aspect.
Best regards,
Rolf
Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway