A Tense-Prominent Analysis of the Biblical Hebrew Verbal System

Matthew Anstey kindly sent me a copy of his programmatic essay, hot off the press, entitled “The Biblical Hebrew qatal verb: a functional discourse grammar analysis,” Linguistics 47 (2009) 824-844. The essay is lucid, fully engages the field of linguistics, and is respectful of perspectives at odds with its own - trademark qualities of Anstey’s scholarship. To whet your appetite, I will quote his key conclusions, add a few titles to his status quaestionis summary, and intersperse observations of my own.

Anstey offers a tense-prominent analysis of the verbal system of Biblical Hebrew. Here is the outline of his essay: 1. Introduction (825-26); 2. The BH verbal system (826-34); 3. An FDG analysis of QV [a functional discourse grammar analysis of BH qatal] (835-39); 4. Conclusion (840-41); Footnotes (841-44). In this post, I take a look at Part 2.1-2.2.2.

2.                The BH verbal system

2.1              Introduction

2.2              The multifunctionality of qatal

2.2.1           Narration

2.2.2           Narratives

2.2.3           Conditional and hypothetical clauses

2.2.4           Polite QVs

2.2.5           Proverbial clauses

2.2.6           Future QVs

2.3              Summary of QV functions

Anstey adopts the position that BH qatal (827) “has Past as its core meaning, for the following straightforward reason: in the range of functions discussed below, Past is clearly the default interpretation in narrative and reported speech. The other uses occur in much more restricted constructions and contexts” (827).

The wayyiqtol and yiqtol, according to Anstey, are not as problematic (827):

Of the three finite verbs, QV [qatal] has the most puzzling range of functions. In contrast, NV is analyzed almost unanimously as a simple Past Verb, and the Nonpast yiqtol, although also multifunctional, has a range of functions that is typical of nonpast forms, namely, various imperfective and modal nuances, as well as habitual and generic uses.

[I’m not sure that the range of functions of qatal in ancient Hebrew is any more puzzling than, say, those of the aorist in ancient Greek. But then, I understand the range of functions of qatal to be less scattered than Anstey does (see below). My other reaction to the quoted paragraph is that one needs to think in terms of four principal finite verbs in ancient Hebrew, with the inclusion of the w^eqatal pattern.]

Anstey distinguishes between narrative [“written speech”] and narration [“direct speech”]. Key graph (827):

In narration, which in BH is direct speech in written narrative, QV [qatal] typically functions in Main and Complement Clauses as a past or present perfect tense for Nonstative Verbs and as a present tense for Stative Verbs. The choice between past or present perfect in translation is often arbitrary. In Relative Clauses, QVs function as anterior, relative to the tense of the main Verb (Zevit 1998).

[As Anstey himself makes clear, his “Stative Verb” category does not reference morphology. Anstey makes a functional distinction when he parses ידעתי in ידעתי כי נתן יהוה לכם את־הארץ ‘I know יהוה has given the land to you’ (Josh 2:9) as a Present Stative.

The distinction between states and occurrences is not always clear-cut extra-linguistically, in objective reality. Linguistically, it is even less clear-cut. The way situations are conceptualized and their properties morphologized and/or grammaticalized with particular verbs is, almost by definition, systematic in part only. For example, an important class of stative verbs in a number of languages is that of cognition, emotion, and attitude. In ancient Hebrew, some members of this class, like אהב and שנא, are marked morphologically (in some, not all forms); other members, ידע included, are not. But ידע is marked as a stative grammatically, I would argue, when it occurs in the qatal with imperfective meaning (as in the above example, Josh 2:9), just as similar verbs in English occur in the simple present with imperfective meaning: “I believe he took a wrong turn;” “She knows where her son is.” “She knows” is grammatically marked by deployment of the simple present such that it refers to a state with a past, present, and imperfective component.

If a past occurrence were in view, it would be rendered as follows: “She knew where her son was.” The example shows that verbs of this class can also be used to refer to occurrences.

‘Stance’ or ‘position’ verbs are also dual use. Statively, again expressed with a simple present: “The temple stands in the valley below.” If a ‘stance’ verb is used to refer to an occurrence, a progressive is preferred: “He is standing outside.”

Still, the conceptual distinction between states and occurrences is easily muddled, at least for those whose first language is English, because states in English are sometimes grammaticalized with a simple present but often construed as an occurrence and grammaticalized with a present perfect.

A present perfect grammaticalization is not available in ancient Hebrew. Rather, BH qatal, like the aorist in ancient Greek, expresses either past tense relative to a particular point of reference or omnitemporality (of more than one kind, states included). BH qatal maps onto English in terms of a variety of past tenses, the simple present for states, and a variety of modal expressions for (in the non-technical sense) omnitemporality in conditions. In the following examples, the qatals (translation equivalents italicized) are not (1) simple Past Verbs (in Anstey’s terminology), but (2) relative past tenses or (3) “omnitemporals” (statives). However, the distinction between (1)-(3) is etic rather than emic, in my opinion, with respect to ancient Hebrew. Emically, qatal is always and simply a past tense with respect to a particular point of reference.

הַדְרִיכֵנִי בִּנְתִיב מִצְוֹתֶיךָ

כִּי־בֹו חָפָצְתִּי

Lead me in the path of your commands,
for therein I delight. (Ps 119:35)

וְאֶעֱנֶה חֹרְפִי דָבָר

כִּי־בָטַחְתִּי בִּדְבָרֶךָ

And I will answer my taunter with a word,
for I trust in your word. (Ps 119:42)

גַּל מֵעָלַי חֶרְפָּה וָבוּז

כִּי עֵדֹתֶיךָ נָצָרְתִּי

גַּם יָשְׁבוּ שָׂרִים בִּי נִדְבָּרוּ

עַבְדְּךָ יָשִׂיחַ בְּחֻקֶּיךָ

Roll away from (their position) over me taunt and abuse,
for your precepts I keep.
Princes meet [lit., sit] and are outspoken against me;
your servant will reiterate your rulings. (Ps 119:22-23)

טָפְלוּ עָלַי שֶׁקֶר זֵדִים

אֲנִי בְּכָל־לֵב אֶצֹּר פִּקּוּדֶיךָ

טָפַשׁ כַּחֵלֶב לִבָּם

אֲנִי תּוֹרָתְךָ שִׁעֲשָׁעְתִּי

The arrogant smear me with lies;
I on my part will wholeheartedly keep your decrees.
Their heart is thick like fat;
I on my part take pleasure in your direction. (Ps 119:70-71)

יְבֹאוּנִי רַחֲמֶיךָ וְאֶחְיֶה

כִּי־תוֹרָתְךָ שַׁעֲשֻׁעָי

May your mercies reach me, and I live,
for your direction is my source of pleasure. (Ps 119:77)

יְרֵאֶיךָ יִרְאוּנִי וְיִשְׂמָחוּ

כִּי לִדְבָרְךָ יִחָלְתִּי

Those who fear you see me and rejoice
that I place my hope in your word. (Ps 119:74)

Note how the כי complementizer consistently introduces a qatal.]

Anstey remarks as follows about narrative (“written speech”): “Unlike [oral] narration, the basic past tense verb of [written] narrative is the NV [wayyiqtol]” (829). NVs dominate written narrative and “indicate move continuations,” whereas “QVs in narrative primarily indicate move transitions, that is, the beginning and end of paragraphs (Heller 2004)” (830). He also notes: “in Main Declarative Clauses, BH signals argument focus by fronting (van der Merwe and Talstra 2002-2003), again excluding NV from initial position” (830).

[That might be restated a little more neutrally as follows: wayyiqtols are the workhorse of narrative in ancient Hebrew; qatals serve to open, close, and summarize narrative units; more generally, to topicalize or change focus.

The above restatement is close to Anstey’s concluding overview of “Functions of QV in Narrative”: “start, end, summary, topicalisation, focus” (834). ]

One of the absolute strengths of Anstey’s scholarship is his penchant for formulating testable hypotheses. A key example (832):

Although QVs [qatals] appear in [written] narrative and NVs (wayyiqtols] appear in [oral] narration (Example 3), there are no examples of narratives dominated by QVs, even though QVs dominate most narrations. And narration never begins with a NV, even in cases where it is dominated by NVs.

[The statement “QVs dominate most [oral] narrations” is testable. Is it true? If one compares like with like, that is, examples of oral narration contained in written BH narrative with examples of written BH narrative pure and simple of about the same length and about the same degree of plot development, the distinction between oral and written narrative, I think, breaks down. The long oral narrations contained in Pss 78, 105, 106, for example, are dominated by NVs, even if yiqtols which function no differently than wayyiqtols within the narrative occur in Ps 78. Jotham’s elaborate parable in Judg 9:8-15, another example of oral narration, is also dominated by NVs. A further set of oral narrations which to my mind suggest that wayyiqtol is just as connatural to oral narration as to written narrative insofar as move continuations are substantial to the telling of a past event is contained in Job 1:14-19. On average the plot development found in oral narration is minimal; on average, therefore, wayyiqtol is used less than in written narrative, which often develops a plot over a span of thousands of words. This is my explanation for the very lopsided preponderance of wayyiqtols in written narrative, over against the relative but not enormous preponderance of independent-clause qatals in oral narration, over the corpus examined by Heller (2004). Anstey helpfully provides a tabulation of the distribution of QV and NV in written narrative and oral narration in Heller’s corpus (832).]

To be continued.

Bibliography

Roy L. Heller, Narrative Structure and Discourse Constellations: An Analysis of Clause Function in Biblical Hebrew Prose (HSS 55; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2004); Christo H. J. van der Merwe and Eep Talstra, “Biblical Hebrew Word Order: The Interface of Information Structure and Formal Features,” ZAH 15/16 (2002-2003) 68-107; Ziony Zevit, The Anterior Construction in Classical Hebrew (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998)

Comments

[David Reimer]

Interesting article! I'm glad you flagged it up, as Linguistics isn't in my normal round of journal reading/browsing!

It makes me think again that the real problem is a descriptive one, isn't it? That is, we can agree on translations/glosses pretty quickly. Agreeing the reasons for those trans/glosses is a different matter.

Banal observation: the interaction of morphology and semantics can be complex, and I suppose this is what the "functional" part is intended to bring to the table (cf. the Josh 2:9 example above).

A stimulating read (I'm so thankful for electronic journals!), and it makes me wonder what impact Steve Dempster's PhD might have had if it had been published back in the day ("Linguistic features of Hebrew narrative: a discourse analysis of narrative from the classical period", U of Toronto, 1985; supervisor E.J. Revell).

[JohnFH]

Hi David,

I'm glad you found the article interesting. I'll keep working on a summary and marginal notes thereto.

[danielandtonya]

John,

Finally sat down at read your reviews. Thanks for them. I'll search Stellenbosch's library for the article... we'll see.

A few thoughts

1. I really like the detail in 'occurrence' or 'state'. I always equated the ability to take a DO with action verbs and zero valency with statives. In light of this, that mere grammatical description is not good enough.

2. I don't understand how you bring 'topic' or 'topicalization' into the mix. Aren't verbal phrases (except substantive ptcps) always going to be the focus of some topic? It sounds like you're saying a qatal can be a topic, but that can't be right so I must be reading wrong. A qatal can topicalize? Can you explain further please

3. The paper (or your summary of it) seems to attempt explaining narrative, but your examples are all from Psalms. Why?

D

[danielandtonya]

And the same psalm at that!

[JohnFH]

Hi Daniel,

I sent you the article. I hope you got it.

My examples from Psalm 119 serve a purpose. Scroll up to the subsequent installments of my review. I treat many of Anstey's examples, drawn mostly from narration and narrative.

[JohnFH]

As far as discourse analysis is concerned, I don't bring it into the mix, except to agree with Anstey that qatal is found at the onset and conclusion of discourse units dominated by wayyiqtols, and that it is found alongside of wayyiqtols for the purpose of topicalizing and/or focus.

[Nathan]

On what basis do you describe the relative past tense as emic for qatal of Biblical Hebrew?

[JohnFH]

Hi Nathan,

I see the qatal as emic relative past tense in two senses.

(1) The vast majority of examples of qatal in ancient Hebrew are easily understood as such. To build a little on what Anstey says, "Past is clearly the [natural] default interpretation in narrative and reported speech," I would add, "relative past is the natural default interpretation of qatal in standard non-matrix clauses" as well.

My standard for naturalness is the degree to which, for example, relative past tense or anteriority is the natural default interpretation of the simple past (preterit) and present perfect in English. True, if a tense-prominent analysis of the simple past and present perfect in English, to continue with the same example, does not seem natural to you, if does not seem to you that such an analysis respects the nature of the English TAM system, I'm sure you will not be convinced that a tense-prominent analysis of qatal in ancient Hebrew respects its nature.

(2) The native grammatical tradition of the Hebrew language offers a tense-prominent analysis of the verbal system. That analysis is no doubt incomplete, but to claim that the native tradition has it all backwards and then offer an aspect-prominent analysis (complete vs. incomplete; or perfective vs. imperfective) such that, in the end, ancient Hebrew is left with an AM system, not a TAM system (except perhaps a non-relative-past narrative wayyiqtol, but I would argue that wayyiqtol is also construable most naturally as a relative past tense), seems questionable at best.

Unless, of course, you have decided that TAM systems in general, cross-linguistically, are best understood as rarely marking tense, or marking tense only derivatively. That's fine: there are linguists that are dead-set on such analyses. For that reason, it is useless to expect people to ever agree about the correct analysis of the AH verbal system.

If I point out that a certain pattern of use of qatal is strictly analogous to a pattern of use of the simple past and present perfect in English, and am greeted with a reply to the effect that that is some sort of coincidence, that in any case, though we may continue to accept a tense-prominent analysis of English for precisely those patterns, we need to go with an aspect-prominent analysis of AH nonetheless, at least I am within my rights to ask what examples of qatal are there that make an aspect-prominent needful. I am completely open to changing my mind, but the needed examples so far have not been forthcoming.

If that is the case, then it seems to me that an aspect-prominent analysis of AH, however productive of insights, is an etic analysis, whereas a tense-prominent analysis, relatively speaking, is an emic analysis. Etic analyses attempt to map a system of oppositions in a given language onto to a system of oppositions which are a distillate, or abstraction, based on an understanding most often of another language or languages. At least, that's the way it seems to work in practice. If you think otherwise, please say so.

[Nathan]

Thanks for the reply. Keeping in mind that I am a non-specialist, let me make a few remarks.

Regarding 1: cannot the vast majority of qatals equally be interpreted as expressing perfective aspect, with time being supplied secondarily by context? The fact that either interpretation, relative past tense or perfective aspect, is equally plausible makes me want to look primarily at how the qatal functions in the verbal system as a whole, rather than how it seems natural to interpret it on its own. The right question would seem not to be what is the most natural interpretation (from the perspective of tense-prominent English speakers!) of qatals, but rather how the qatal fits into the verbal system as a whole. If qatal represents relative past tense, why in some cases does the author choose a yiqtol, apparently the "opposite" verbal form, to express action in the past (ex. yiqqaḥ in Exod 33:7; yitten in 1 sam 1:7)? To my mind, examples like this of the use of the yiqtol should condition how we describe the qatal.

Regarding 2: I am not that familiar with the native grammatical tradition of Biblical Hebrew. Does it arise prior to the medieval period? Since none of the medieval Hebrew grammarians was a native speaker of Classical Hebrew, I'm not sure I would call their description of the Classical Hebrew verbal system emic. I wouldn't want to exclude what they have to say, but I see no reason to privilege it over other etic descriptions.

[JohnFH]

Nathan,

Thanks for the conversation.

Regarding 1: I don't buy your statement of "equal plausibility." If an aspectual opposition were marked by the qatal-yiqtol pair, we would expect qatal for example to be used with future-referencing time indicators like maxar "tomorrow." But we don't find that. Just an example.

The only reason I began with English is because it's a language we have in common, and both know well. Another way to approach this is by comparison with a well-known aspect-heavy verbal system, such as Russian. Or perhaps you have some other standard of comparison, on the aspect-heavy side, that you prefer. Analogies of various kinds ought be evident. If they are not, in my opinion, the aspect theory is dead in the water. Basically you end up analyzing BH in a sort of vacuum.

Regarding 2: I think you woefully underestimate the degree of continuity between ancient Hebrew, rabbinic Hebrew, and medieval Hebrew.

It would be easy to broaden the discourse to include Arabic and the native Arabic grammatical tradition. There's always the possibility to close one's eyes to all of this. A similar approach is sometimes attempted with Sanskrit. I'm not sure the results are particularly convincing.

[Nathan]

Thanks again for the feedback. Perhaps I do underestimate the continuity between the verbal systems of the various stages of Hebrew. Still, as much continuity as there was, they were not native speakers of Classical Hebrew, right? Doesn't this make their description of its grammar etic by definition?

As for your response to my claim of "equal plausibility", it is definitely something to consider that maḥar never appears with qatal (a quick accordance scan shows it only used with yiqtol, wqatal, and participles). I suppose my resistance to the tense-prominent description arises more from observations of the other forms, such as the yiqtol examples I cited, which I find much easier to understand aspectually. Convinced of that, I see no difficulty in understanding qatal also as primarily marked for aspect, secondarily for tense by context, thus making a coherent binary aspectual system.

[JohnFH]

I would say this right off: the grammatical analyses of classical Hebrew and classical Arabic by medieval sages are the closest thing we have to emic analyses of the languages in question.

*How* close those are to being an emic analysis depends on how much distance there is between the TAM system of AH, that of post-AH, and the degree to which the medieval grammarians distinguished the two, in theory or in practice. In order to explore the possibilities in that sense, it is necessary to begin with working hypotheses. What I've discovered so far as I continue reading post-biblical Hebrew is that relative tense is a useful concept, with considerable explanatory power.

There are indeed a whole set of yiqtols capable of aspectual analysis. They don't pair oppositionally with qatal however, but with wayyiqtol. It's more complicated than that, but I throw that out as food for thought.

Furthermore, iterative yiqtols seem close to what are sometimes called weak modals in other languages - "would" in English for example. Since yiqtol in still other sets of usage appears to be a part of a larger, complex system of modals, it might be better to classify yiqtols that mark iterative aspect as marking a weak modal like "would" in English. Or maybe that's all splitting hairs.

In any case, yiqtol in general does not mark imperfective aspect with qatal as its oppositional pair marking perfective aspect, but future (more precisely nonpast) over against past.

I say that with confidence, because if a binary aspectual system were in place, one would expect to find plenty of perfectives with future time reference (as in Russian, an aspect-heavy language), and some "explicit play" or alternation based on aspectual distinctions with at least a few frequent idioms.

I don't see either. Maybe I'm not looking hard enough, but that's how things stand at the moment.

In short, I don't see a coherent binary aspectual system in AH. I see five principal finite verb forms: qatal, yiqtol, weqatal, wayyiqtol, and the predicative participle qotel. Plus there are haya periphrastic structures. I can make sense of the whole via a tense-prominent analysis. I don't see how an aspect-prominent analysis can make sense of the whole.

[Nathan]

Thanks again. My hang-up is still that if yiqtol is marked for future (nonpast), then why is it so often used to talk about the past (the examples I gave could be multiplied, as I'm sure you know)? I don't understand how pointing out that its usage sometimes corresponds to weak modals solves this problem. Either the yiqtol form is marked for tense or it isn't. If sometimes it is used in a past tense context in what you call a weak modal sense, isn't this good evidence that the yiqtol is not primarily marked for tense? Viewing the yiqtol form as marked for imperfective aspect can explain what you call the weak modal use, as well as its use in future time contexts, and its volitive use.

But, again, I have to admit I'm no linguist.

As for making sense of the whole, I'm not competent to make claims about the whole, but basically I see two aspects each marked by two forms. Perfectivity (viewing the event as complete) is marked by wayyiqtol and qatal; imperfectivity by yiqtol and wqatal.

[JohnFH]

Nathan,

Excellent conversation.

You sound like a discriminating linguist to me. Anyway, you can't get yourself off the hook by pleading incompetence, since the competent ones, those with the highest degree of linguistic training, differ among themselves on precisely these issues, no less than those who approach the language with less knowledge of secondary literature.

Perhaps I can defuse the discussion a bit by quoting a famous proponent of aspect prominent analyses, Osten Dahl:

QUOTE:

"There is a coupling between notional perfectivity and past time reference, and notional imperfectivity and present time reference." (Typology of Languages in Europe, p. 16).

My comment: which explains why people come down on these matters in different ways.

QUOTE:

"There seems to be a widespread view of tense and aspect as alternatives to each other - that languages tend to be either 'tense languages' or 'aspect languages.' . . . the data . . . provide no support for such a conclusion. In fact, there are considerably more languages in the sample that have both the aspectual and the temporal categories, or neither of the alternatives, than have one only." (Osten Dahl and Viveka Velupillai, "65-68. Tense and Aspect, p. 9).

Here's a kicker:

QUOTE:

"Since it generally is the past tense rather than the present that is overtly marked, we may speak of languages having or not having past marking rather than having a past/no-past distinction." (Osten Dahl and Viveka Velupillai, "65-68. Tense and Aspect, p. 10)

My comment: This is another way of saying that the predilection for aspect-prominent analysis in Dahl is driven by statistics (note his "generally"). That's not a strong argument. In any case, it falls flat in the case of Hebrew, since in Hebrew it is the present(-future), the yiqtol, that is overtly marked, whereas the qatal is zero-grade.

This is how I understand you. Whereas you are not bothered that yiqtol does not demonstrably mark an aspectual contrast, except insofar as there is a natural coupling of present-future and imperfectivity (you have already implied that the fact of coupling leads you to the conclusion of 'equal' plausibility), you are bothered that yiqtol, when it does not stand in opposition to qatal with which it is "usually" ( a canonical statement, not a statistical observation) paired in a binary contrast, but with wayyiqtol, marks a modality (as "would" does in English) / aspect (an imperfective) with past time reference.

The solution I know of from the literature, among those who offer tense-prominent analyses, is as follows (Joosten and Penner both, if I understand them correctly):

Yiqtol *isn't* a tense in the sense that qatal and wayyiqtol are. It marks modality essentially, but due to the coupling already noted, and/or grammaticalization, *also* functions as a NONPAST tense in binary opposition to the PAST tense qatal.

Statistically, this *also* function is more frequent than yiqtol's various modal uses, among which is a weak modal/aspectual usage restricted to past reference contexts.

That's complicated, but languages are complicated. Given that qatal, the ex hypothesi past tense, is the zero-grade form, it is not at all surprising that its primary marked counterpart, the yiqtol, comes close to being a jack-of-all-trades.

Like many languages, Hebrew simply doesn't have distinct inflectional forms for a lot of tense and aspect distinctions, unlike some other languages.

[Nathan]

Not sure if I'm following, but would you say the same for wqatal, that it is not a tense in the same sense as qatal and wayyiqtol, but secondarily comes to function as nonpast like the yiqtol?

If so, does this leave you with a language with only one real tense, past, marked by two forms, qatal and wayyiqtol, other tenses being indicated by essentially modal forms?

[JohnFH]

Of course, the essential / non-essential business is hotly contested. A lot depends on whether you are looking for a diachronic description or a purely synchronic description. I am only interested in the latter for ancient Hebrew, just as I am only interested in a synchronic description of the grammar of ancient Greek, Akkadian, Aramaic, modern English, German, Italian, all the other languages I read on a regular basis. Frankly, that keeps me occupied enough.

Diachronically, it may well be the case that AH is a language which developed one basic tense, the unmarked qatal, which originally was something else, to which was added, via grammaticalization, wayyiqtol, another past tense, along with two forms, yiqtol and weqatal, that function as tenses in a set of oppositions to qatal and wayyiqtol, but might be viewed more essentially as modals.

Forms understood by some contemporary grammarians as nonpast/(present-)future are viewed as modals by others; the latter is the (contested) trendsetter. I would argue that the trend replaces an old simplification (a tense-prominent analysis of the English "future," for example) with a new simplification.

Diachrony and trendiness aside, the language as we have it includes five basic forms which mark tense in specifiable contexts: qatal, wayyiqtol, yiqtol, weqatal, and qotel the predicative participle, plus periphrastic structures. Nevertheless all of these forms, in non-matrix clauses and elsewhere, have a variety of other functions. At least that is the way I see it, and I'm pretty sure I am not alone.

Of course, it's possible to raise the bar so high with respect to what it means that a form *marks* something that Hebrew ends up being a "tenseless" language, the conclusion of Galia Hatav, a generative grammarian.

BTW, Hatav's analyses are brilliant even if, as is my case, her generative framework is not accepted, or her tendency to see aspect under every high hill and leafy tree.

But in the aspect-prominent camp in Hebrew-land today, Hatav's degree of consistency in analysis is quite rare.

The most brilliant defender of an aspect-prominent analysis I'm aware of, John Cook, recognizes at least one tense in BH, the wayyiqtol, and seems well aware of the reasons why other Hebraists take qatal as a past tense, from a synchronic point of view and an eschatological point of view, in the sense that it becomes, more and more, just as qotel becomes, more and more, a present tense. Does it make sense to evaluate forms in terms of what they are becoming, not only in terms of what they come from? I'm convinced of this, but I am unaware of linguistic literature that makes the same point.

I don't know what Cook's opinion of a synchronic tense-prominent analysis of yiqtol might be. It's a question I have for Matthew Anstey, what is the best tense-prominent analysis of yiqtol available.

Some of Cook's best work shows how all or most of the forms, pragmatically speaking, have modal usages. For the rest, it often seems that scholars like to go back and forth with which came first, the chicken or the egg discussions. I'm not being quite fair to put it that way, but nonetheless.

[Vince]

Dear John,

I welcome Matthew Anstey's valuable contribution. Thanks for drawing our attention to it. It is always valuable to have other frameworks and analyses, especially specific analyses worked out concretely therein.

The paper raises points that should be thoroughly plumbed. I count three major points.

1. ARCHITECTURE OF GRAMMAR

As you know, John, I've been working intensively on the syntax-phonology interface (prosodic structure), and I find that only a parallel architecture will work here: specifically, the constraint-based Optimality Theory (OT).

Anstey emphasizes the importance of multi-tiered, simultaneous and parallel architecture vs derivational ["feed-through"]. Great.

I proposed such an approach in my doctoral work, DeCaen (1995): optimally simplified, streamlined modular grammars, crucially unprivileged, that interact at the grammatical interface, creating complexity and inherent “mismatches”.

I actually snuck in Sadock’s Autolexical Grammar (cf. Jackendoff on architecture) specifically in integrating Topicalization (movement to spec-IP) with an explicit Discourse module and syntax-discourse mapping.

This is much more explicit now in my work, now that I’m moving to an Optimality-theoretic (OT) approach to BH grammar: I can’t see any other architecture for an explanatory framework for prosodics (but I'd be happy to be introduced to some other approach that might work).

2. QUESTION OF DEFAULT

It should be emphasized that Anstey and I have the same approach at a very basic level.

For example, I assign the primitive [past] to qatal, and derive perfectivity, mood, etc. by a similar notion and mechanism of "default".

I can't help avoiding the conclusion that default for Anstey is a statistical frequency epiphenomenon; but in fact, if you read further, this is not the case when you look at his representations and mechanisms.

There is some overlap in approach and findings. Consider the case where the moment of speech can be uncontroversially fixed. In that case, we both predict "default" past tense readings for qatal for nonstatives.

Q3: HIGHLIGHTS CRUX OF STATIVE QTL: COMPOSITIONALITY

This will be a problem for any and all analyses, and for all (?) languages, as he emphasizes (including English): how to combine [past] with other semantic features.

Ultimately, it will have to be solved, I believe, within formal semantics as a problem in representation, underspecificity, defaulting and compositionality.

I assumed (DeCaen 1995) that this was not necessarily a problem, since the obvious difference in lexical aspect made such an explanation possible, and I cited examples from other languages. I did not work out a complete formal analysis for this specific case of statives, but it should be possible.

N.B.
On the discourse stuff, Heller, etc., he should probably add Brian Peckham's contribution, (1997)“Tense and Mood in Biblical Hebrew.” ZAH 10.2: 139-168. I remember it being relevant to transitions, etc.

Shalom,
V

[Vince]

Dear John,

Supplemental
(three notes while on lunch break, enjoying a turkey sandwich).

1. I place a huge premium on Chomskyan explanatory adequacy. It seems to me that no analysis of qatal can be adequate in this technical sense that does not make an explicit connection with the morphology, syntax and semantics of the so-called weqatal. It is odd to me that there is no real mention of this second form in the paper.

2. On a related note, I wrote a big IOU in my 1995 dissertation for the semantics of weqatal, which I analyzed as modal coordination (and made crosslinguistic connections, esp. in subsequent work). Crucially, [past] and [irrealis] must combine; and this is universally problematic, if you just glance at the theoretical literature on formal semantics. This forced me into a long detour into the semantics of coordination: just what does "and" mean? (I think I have an interesting song and dance that I can now make in this regard. More anon.)

3. My tentative analysis (1995) of statives and [past]:

(a) a stative is a STATE in lexical representation (e.g., "know", "big"):

---------

(b) a stative becomes a bounded PROCESS by combination with finite TENSE (e.g., "come to know", "become big"):

--o---o--

(c) the PROCESS becomes completed with the combination with PAST, implication: resulting in a new STATE (e.g., "have come to know" => "now know", "became big" => "big now")

(d) the natural interpretation of such representations in English is a nonprogressive present tense (e.g., "I know", "I am big"); cf. Greek and Latin, e.g., for similar forms and behaviour.

cheers!
V

[JohnFH]

Vince,

Thanks for your input here. I'm sure Matthew Anstey will enjoy reading your comments.

What is fascinating, but also to be expected, is that generativists come to very different conclusions about the BH verbal system. Galia Hatav, as I think I note above, offers an aspect- and modal-prominent analysis of BH and, if I'm not mistaken, modern English as well. In any case, she describes BH as a "tenseless language."

I follow your comments about the stative, and concur. What I don't understand are your reasons for understanding qatal as first of all a (relative?) tense, as opposed to a marker of aspect. I agree with the conclusion, and I can imagine how OT helps sort out of these issues, but at some point, you will help us all with an actual demonstration.