Verbal Semantics
- Grammar
- Semantics
- Exegetical Issues
- Discourse
- Poetics
- Synthesis
- Close-but-Clear
- Videos
- Post to wiki
Overseer: Eyal Nahum
Introduction[ ]
This layer focuses on the relationship between verbs, time, and modality. These are important categories for interpretation and translation, and how one analyzes a verb can have a significant effect on how it is rendered. For example, notice how differently this selection of English versions translates the same verbs in Ps 3:8:
- הִכִּ֣יתָ אֶת־כָּל־אֹיְבַ֣י לֶ֑חִי // שִׁנֵּ֖י רְשָׁעִ֣ים שִׁבַּֽרְתָּ׃
- You strike . . . You shatter . . . (ESV, GNT)
- You have struck . . . You have shattered . . . (KJV, NASB)
- Strike . . . ! Shatter . . . ! (NIV, NLT, CEB)
- You will strike . . . You will shatter . . . (NET)
This layer has been through several iterations as it strives to accomplish two things:
- Transparency for the native Hebrew structures
- Transparency for the interpretation necessary to translate the verbal semantics into other languages
Steps[ ]
Before you begin...
- Locate and open the Excel file generated for your psalm in this folder.
- This Excel file will already contain the grammatical analysis for each verb in the psalm and have a dropdown menu for the remaining columns from which you can choose the option that reflects your verbal analysis.
Overview:
- Check the automatically generated Hebrew text and remove any unnecessary rows.
- Check the automatically generated morphological analysis for each verb and correct the highlighted roots.
- Identify the verb's relative tense (e.g., yiqtol=posterior, qatal=anterior) and reference point (nearly always present) and place the appropriate arrow for the relative tense into the appropriate Fut/Pres/Past column. Identify any nuance of aspect (specifically continuous, iterative/habitual, or stative) where present. Determine the expected movement of the reference point for each clause.
- Specify the effective modality of every finite verb. Specify the reason for the chosen modality.
- Make the verbal gloss in the Close-but-Clear bold and colored according to effective verbal semantics (so waw-conjoined forms will merge with their governing verbs and ambiguous yiqtols will be colored for any semantics they effectively have).
For legend, click "Expand" to the right
For steps to determine relative tense and reference point movement click "Expand" to the right:
1. Check the Hebrew text[ ]
The Hebrew text has already been automatically included in the Excel file and will appear in the second column. Do however make sure to address the following issues:
- The program uses a parsing tool that offers more than one syntactic breakdown for each clause, which means you will have to delete some rows and keep only the one that corresponds to how you demarcate the clause boundaries.
- In the "Alternative" column, choose "0."
- For all preferred emendations or revocalizations in the Hebrew texts, replace the MT reading in the main text with the emended or revocalized Hebrew with asterisks on either side of the altered Hebrew text (e.g., *מֵחֹשֶׁךְ*). The asterisks should be colored purple if the change is a revocalization and blue if an emendation of the consonantal text. Do not supply accents for the altered Hebrew text. In the notes section, include a note for each emendation or revocalization referring to the primary discussion of the issue (usually a note in the grammar layer or an exegetical issue) and providing the MT for comparison. E.g., ** For the revocalization מֵחֹשֶׁךְ, see grammar note (MT: מַחְשָֽׁךְ).
Note: our goal is to not only analyze the finite verbs but also those expressions that might be translated with verbs in other languages. This includes infinitives, predicative participles, and verbless clauses. Adjectival participles should be included when aspect is clearly a part of their meaning (e.g., one who has directed music vs. one who directs music (regularly)).
2. Morphology[ ]
The morphological analysis will have already been made and included in the Excel file. Do however make sure to address the following issues:
- Some roots might be highlighted in yellow, which means you will have to manually fix them and remove the vowels from them.
- If there are multiple options, duplicate the row and color the background of the non-preferred row grey. In the "Alternative" column, indicate the option number accordingly, starting from "1." When you have settled the alternative (viable) option, then merge all cells that have identical data to draw attention to those areas where the interpretation is different.
- In cases where the clause has no explicit verb, either because it is a verbless clause or because the verb is implied from a previous line, the morphology columns should be merged.
The color of the Hebrew verbs you will see in the Excel file should be according to their morphological conjugation (e.g., qatal light blue, wayyiqtol dark blue when following qatal) and match the following template.
3. Time[ ]
Tense[ ]
Identify both the relative tense (anterior, simultaneous, or posterior, if tensed at all) and the reference point (future, present, or past, if tensed at all). In the reference point column (usually 'Pres.'), put the arrow appropriate to the relative tense. The color of the arrow will be automatically assigned by the Excel sheet according to the conjugation.
Posterior | ← |
---|---|
Simultaneous | ↓ |
Anterior | → |
If tense is not applicable to the verbal form (as with many participles and nominal clauses), leave the columns blank.
Note that the relative tense follows automatically from the conjugation (understanding that qatal, for instance, is always anterior; wayyiqtol, on the other hand, derives its values from a preceding verb, so the dark blue will repeat a preceding arrow).
Aspect[ ]
The Aspect column is for tracking nuances of aspect. Very often, the Aspect column will simply be left blank when there is no clear aspect indicated. We begin with tracking continuous (ongoing action at the time of the reference point), habitual or iterative (starting and stopping and resuming regularly), or stative (no change) aspect. Perfective aspect is reserved, currently, for participles that should not be misunderstood as imperfective (e.g., עֹשֵׂה שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ is not the one who regularly makes heaven and earth but rather the one who made heaven and earth). We may track more aspects as we find them exegetically significant.
Note that the qatal of stative verbs usually conveys present-tense state. They may sometimes be glossed felicitously as, e.g., זָקַנְתָּ, you have become old, but sometimes only the present makes sense, e.g., יָפְיָפִיתָ, you are extremely beautiful.
Choose the appropriate character in the Aspect column.
Continuous | ⟲ |
---|---|
Habitual or iterative | ⟲⟲⟲ |
Stative | ⎯ |
Perfective | ⋅ |
Examples: In Ps 88:12a הַיְסֻפַּ֣ר בַּקֶּ֣בֶר חַסְדֶּ֑ךָ the yiqtol verb with a lack of time reference movement is what prompts the habitual reading "Is your faithful love recounted in the tomb?" In v. 10b קְרָאתִ֣יךָ יְהוָ֣ה בְּכָל־י֑וֹם, on the other hand, the context is what prompts the habitual reading of the verb קְרָאתִיךָ. Though compatible with a habitual or continuous aspect, the qatal does not naturally entail either of them. It is rather the phrase בְּכָל-יוֹם that prompts us to read the qatal verb as habitual rendered in English as "I have been calling to you."
Expected movement of the reference point[ ]
Indicate the expected movement of the discourse (advance movement for narrative sections, no movement for descriptive or logical sections) with the appropriate arrow. The background color of cells with movement will be automatically set to grey (#808080) with 20% opacity. This will highlight stretches of possible narrative portions.
Expected movement | ⇐ (formerly ↶) |
---|---|
No expected movement | ⇍ (formerly ↓) |
When you have finished, merge contiguous cells of coordinated clauses so you can see how reference point movement spans a stretch of discourse.
4. Modality[ ]
Modality is much less developed in Hebrew than in English. This column will make use of distinctions made in English as the effective modality of the verb.
In the first modality column, specify the effective modality, which will be automatically colored according to the template. If you have another kind of modality to specify, include it tentatively, and, if confirmed through the review process, it will be added to the template.
In the second column, specify the reason for your effective modality. Strive to select options from SIL's linguistic glossary.
Potential reasons include:
- morphology
- word order (clause-initial yiqtol is often modal)
- modal particles (e.g., פֶן, אִם)
- a preceding modal verb (we-yiqtol after imperative is usually purpose)
- location within a conditional
- intertextual echo (e.g., echoing the Aaronic blessing)
5. Close-but-clear[ ]
Using the Close-but-clear (or the developing version), bold and color the translation of the verb according to the conjugation and effective modality (effective modality trumping conjugation, where they differ).
UPDATE: Note that arrows are NO LONGER colored according to modality, but rather exclusively according to conjugation.
SENTENCE FRAGMENTS: Sentence fragments should not be analyzed in terms of verbal semantics, but grey text in parentheses should be supplied in the CBC column to represent the most likely way of turning the fragment into a phrase. E.g., (This is) a psalm. or (This was written) by David.
6. Notes[ ]
Indicate anything relevant to the verbal semantics that is not obvious from the rest of the chart. For example, if you have an auxiliary verbal construction, like ישמחו וירננו, "let them shout joyfully," include a note to this effect, e.g., "Auxiliary verb construction >> acts as an adverb, 'joyfully'." Make sure this is reflected in the CBC.
Cases of a paired yiqtol and qatal (in either order), such as Psalm 26:4, may function to convey something generally true. Note such pairs (which may be translated well by a present habitual in some languages).
Sentence fragments should have Sentence fragment in the Notes column.
Appendices[ ]
Appendix A. Tense[ ]
- Relative tense: a situation’s location in time relative to a given reference point (anterior, simultaneous, or posterior)
- Absolute tense: a situation’s location in time relative to the moment of speech (past, present, future, timeless/unmarked)
'Tense' refers to the situation’s location in time: past, present, future, or timeless. These terms are actually a simplification, which is possible when the reference point is the time of speech:
- past = prior to speech time (anterior)
- present = simultaneous with speech time
- future = after speech time (posterior)
When a different reference point is used, it is more accurate to simply speak of time anterior, simultaneous, or posterior (if marked at all for location in time). When speech time is always assumed as the reference point, it is called absolute tense. When the reference point depends on context, it is called relative tense.
Hebrew has a combination of absolute tense and relative tense. Precisely because the tenses can be relative, it is vital to know what the reference point is -- what reference point the relative tense is relative to. (This is the reason for including reference point movement, below.)
In our chart, we mark the reference point (past/present/future) and the relative tense (anterior/simultaneous/posterior). The combination of these with the expected time reference movement is what shapes the absolute tense. The English CBC will normally indicate the absolute tense.
Examples: in Ps 33:9 כִּ֤י ה֣וּא אָמַ֣ר וַיֶּ֑הִי has a sequence of qatal and wayyiqtol. Given the context, referring to the creation in Gen 1, we assume a reference point movement from the time of speech. Since qatal has, by definition an anterior relative tense, we get an absolute past tense, rendered in English as "he spoke" in the past simple. A wayyiqtol verb normally imitates its preceding verb in the context, and we, therefore, get the same result as for the preceding qatal: "and it was."
In Ps 27:3 אִם־תָּק֣וּם עָ֭לַי מִלְחָמָ֑ה בְּ֝זֹ֗את אֲנִ֣י בוֹטֵֽחַ׃, on the other hand, we assume a reference point movement from the time speech for the protasis. The yiqtol having a posterior relative tense is thus interpreted as an absolute future tense. The apodosis on the other hand has a participle with a simultaneous relative tense. Given the context (a future conditional clause), we assume that the reference point has moved away from the time of speech into the one established by the protasis, and we hence get an absolute future (progressive) tense, rendered in English as "I will be trusting."
Relative tense of event | Reference point | English label | Example |
---|---|---|---|
Anterior | Past | Pluperfect (past-in-the-past) | He had built the temple. |
Anterior | Present | Present perfect (past-in-the-present) | He has built the temple. |
Anterior | Future | Future perfect (past-in-the-future) | He will have built the temple. |
Simultaneous (English) but Posterior (Hebrew) | Past | Past habitual (present-in-the-past) | He would build temples. |
Simultaneous (English) but Posterior (Hebrew) | Present | Present habitual (present-in-the-present) | He builds temples. |
Simultaneous (English) but Posterior (Hebrew) | Future | Future habitual (present-in-the-future) | He will build temples. |
Posterior | Past | (future-in-the-past) | He was going to build a temple. |
Posterior | Present | (future-in-the-present) | He will/is going to build a temple. |
Posterior | Future | (future-in-the-future) | He will be going to build a temple. |
N.B.: This may be misleading, if one is thinking of the action itself. Simultaneity in terms of ongoing action is represented in Hebrew by the participle, not yiqtol or qatal. Yiqtol can present English simultaneity in terms of relevance of a future action, just as qatal can present English simultaneity in terms of relevance of a past action.
Appendix B. Aspect[ ]
- Aspect: the 'temporal constituency' of a situation as portrayed (e.g., stative, continuous, or repeating)
Tense and aspect are conventional analytical categories, with situation aspect increasingly well established (particularly in its more limited form, lexical aspect). A former iteration of our verbal semantics tracked situation aspect for each verb, but it was not clear that the effort required had sufficient exegetical payoff. This version of verbal semantics does not track situation aspect. Instead, it tracks a more generic aspect that mostly coincides with viewpoint aspect in its more specific imperfective manifestations (continuous vs characteristic vs stative).
Aspect is determined from a combination of situation aspect and verbal conjugation. In Ps 29:5a, the plural 'cedars' suggests that the participial phrase YHWH's voice is breaking cedars is repetitive. In Ps 29:9c, it is unclear if everyone is saying 'Honor! Honor! Honor!' repeatedly (in which case it would also be repetitive aspect) or if there is a drawn-out ceremony that, altogether, declares the honor of God. In that case, it would be continuous aspect.
Aspect requires more development, so in part this is a placeholder. This may also be used for phasal aspect, such as ingressive aspect (inceptive for actions, inchoative for states) or completive aspect (e.g., 'eat up' rather than just 'eat').
Appendix C. Reference point movement[ ]
- Reference point movement: whether or not the expected reference point in this discourse is updated after a situation, stereotypically tracking with perfective past or future (movement) vs imperfective habitual yiqtol or perfect qatal (no movement)
The category of reference point movement is exploratory. It holds the potential to explain the difference in English translation of Hebrew verbs, as a category that Hebrew does not distinguish but English does. The below diagram illustrates how reference point movement distinguishes between an English simple past and present perfect, as well as between an English future or imperfective present. Hebrew distinguishes neither of these pairs.
The nature of an ongoing text is that there is always a reference point for the next expected situation. With each new situation, the reference point may or not be updated. It is the expectation of reference point movement that matters here. The default for a narrative backbone is that the reference point advances with each action, leading the reader to expect What comes next? The default for a descriptive or non-narrative text is that the reference point does not advance, because not chronology but some kind of logic drives the text. The reader expects, then, What are the consequences now? of the most recent situation described. These two options are demonstrated below for Psalm 29:10. The essential point is that this category explains the need to distinguish between forms in English where no such distinction is needed in Hebrew.
Appendix D. Modality[ ]
- Modality: the effective modality as would need to be translated into English (e.g., imperative, jussive, subjunctive, conditional, wish)
Imperatives, jussives and cohortatives are volitional modals, by morphology[1]. We-qatal and we-yiqtol are often also purpose/result modals. Clause-initial yiqtol, if in an a-line, should be presumed purpose/result modal unless proven otherwise.
Other forms of modality, such as wish, possibility, permission, conditionals and some purpose are often indicated by discourse markers, such as לו, אולי, פן, בעבר, etc. This kind of modality will be expressed morphologically in English and many other languages, and therefore we will track it, noting how it is marked in Hebrew by means other than morphology.
The main categories of modality are deontic (permission, necessity, and obligation) and epistemic (possibility or probability). Many languages express multiple forms of modality with the same wording, e.g., you may go can either be permission or possibility; you will go may be indicative future or probability.
Here is an outline, largely taken from the SIL Glossary, but including alethic modality (necessity and possibility) under epistemic modality.
- Deontic modality (obligation)
- Commissive: speaker's expressed commitment, as a promise or threat, to bring about the proposition expressed by the utterance
- Volitive: speaker’s attitude of hope, wish, or fear concerning the proposition expressed by the utterance.
- Optative (wishing or hoping)
- Imprecative (wish that an unfavorable position will come about)
- Desiderative (wish of the SUBJECT that a position will come about)
- Directive (speaker’s degree of requirement of conformity to the proposition expressed by an utterance.)
- Deliberative: speaker's request for instruction from the addressee as to whether to do the proposition expressed in the utterance.
- Imperative: commands, sometimes extended to signal permission
- Cohortative/Jussive: speaker's command, permission, or agreement that the proposition expressed by his or her utterance be brought about.
- Obligative: speaker's estimation of the necessity that the proposition expressed in his or her utterance be brought about
- Permissive: speaker’s act of giving permission
- Precative: signals that the utterance is a request
- Prohibitive: signals a prohibition; distinguished by the use of negated imperatives with non-declarative negator or a verb form different from that of the imperative
- Epistemic modality: how much certainty or evidence a speaker has for the proposition expressed by his or her utterance
- Logical necessity (purpose/result)
- Possibility
- Evidentiality: conveys the source of knowledge for his or her statement
- Quotative: signals that someone else is the source of the statement made
- Sensory: speaker’s evidence for the truth of his or her statement is derived from the speaker’s own sensory experience
- Judgement Modality: connotes the speaker's strength of inference or degree of confidence
- Assumptive: speaker's belief that his statement is based on facts about what is usually the case in such circumstances
- Declarative: proposition expressed by a speaker’s utterance is offered as an unqualified statement of fact (can equate to indicative)
- Deductive: the speaker judges from other facts that the proposition expressed by his utterance is probably true.
- Dubitative: signals a speaker’s reservation about the accuracy of his or her statement
- Hypothetical: the speaker evaluates a proposition as counterfactual, but otherwise possible
- Interrogative: the speaker wishes to elicit information concerning the content of his or her utterance from the addressee
- Speculative: the speaker judges from certain facts that the proposition expressed by his or her utterance is possibly true
NOTE: The jussive form in biblical Hebrew may have either volitive or directive modality.
Appendix E. Examples[ ]
Psalm 24:2 (qatal and yiqtol in parallel)[ ]
כִּי־ה֭וּא עַל־יַמִּ֣ים יְסָדָ֑הּ
וְעַל־נְ֝הָר֗וֹת יְכוֹנְנֶֽהָ׃
Morphology | Time | Modality | ||||||||||
Root | Stem | Conj | PGN | Suffix | Fut | Pres | Past | Aspect | Movt | Modality | Reason | Close-but-clear |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
יסד | Qal | qatal | 3ms | 3fs | → | ⇍ | indicative | because he has laid its foundations upon the seas | ||||
כון | Polel | yiqtol | 3ms | 3fs | ← | ⟲ | indicative | and keeps it established upon the oceans |
Psalm 26:4 (qatal and yiqtol in parallel)[ ]
לֹא־יָ֭שַׁבְתִּי עִם־מְתֵי־שָׁ֑וְא
וְעִ֥ם נַ֝עֲלָמִ֗ים לֹ֣א אָבֽוֹא׃
This passage is a good example of how the English translation, based on our perception of reference point movement, is not determined from the local verb or even clause itself. The expected reference point movement is a feature of the larger discourse that shows up, encoded, in English verbs. This means we cannot give a proper translation into English until we have determined this larger discourse feature. (Or, more practically, we give it a go and revise as needed.)
Either of the below analyses is fully viable as far as the Hebrew is concerned. The appropriate English, reflecting reference point movement, will have to be determined from the larger discourse.
Interpreting this with no expected reference point movement[ ]
Morphology | Time | Modality | ||||||||||
Root | Stem | Conj | PGN | Suffix | Fut | Pres | Past | Aspect | Movt | Modality | Reason | Close-but-clear |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ישׁב | Qal | qatal | 1cs | → | ⇍ | indicative | I have not sat with worthless folk | |||||
בוא | Qal | yiqtol | 1cs | ← | ⟲⟲⟲ | indicative | and I do not (regularly) go with hypocrites |
Interpreting this with expected reference point movement[ ]
Morphology | Time | Modality | ||||||||||
Root | Stem | Conj | PGN | Suffix | Fut | Pres | Past | Aspect | Movt | Modality | Reason | Close-but-clear |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ישׁב | Qal | qatal | 1cs | → | ⇐ | indicative | I did not sit with worthless folk (in the past) | |||||
בוא | Qal | yiqtol | 1cs | ← | indicative | and I will not go with hypocrites (in the future) |
Psalm 24:3 (yiqtol with permissive modality)[ ]
מִֽי־יַעֲלֶ֥ה בְהַר־יְהוָ֑ה
וּמִי־יָ֝קוּם בִּמְק֥וֹם קָדְשֽׁוֹ׃
Morphology | Time | Modality | ||||||||||
Root | Stem | Conj | PGN | Suffix | Fut | Pres | Past | Aspect | Movt | Modality | Reason | Close-but-clear |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
עלה | Qal | yiqtol | 3ms | ← | ⇍ | permission | interrogative pronoun + context | Who may go up on the mountain of YHWH? | ||||
קום | Qal | yiqtol | 3ms | ← | permission | interrogative pronoun + context | And who may stand within his holy place? |
Appendix F. Glossary[ ]
For terms not included here, please see SIL’s “Glossary of Linguistic Terms.”
Accomplishment: a situation type in which the event happens over time (durative), but does have a natural endpoint (telic). Unlike semelfactives (e.g., blink), accomplishments involve a change, e.g., run a mile; build a house.
Achievement: a situation type in which the event does not happen over time (punctual), but does have a result state. Achievements occur at a single moment, e.g., reached the top; find; win.
Activity: a situation type in which the event happens over time (durative), but doesn’t have a natural endpoint (atelic).
Aspect: a grammatical category which refers broadly to the relationship between a situation and time; cf. situation type; viewpoint aspect.
Atelic: see telicity.
Durativity: This aspectual property asks if the situation starts and stops. A durative situation extends over time (includes states, resultant states, and continuous action). E.g., She was swimming. A punctual situation is presented as happening instantaneously (includes repetitive actions). E.g., He kicked the ball (single), or He was kicking the ball (repetitive).
Phasal aspect:
Punctual: see durativity.
Semelfactive: a situation type in which the event is punctual, but without any resultant state.
Situation type: sometimes referred to as Aktionsart or situation aspect. The most basic distinction is between state and event. A state is a situation characterized by durativity and lack of change, e.g., possessing, desiring, loving, ruling, believing. An event is a situation in which something “happens,” e.g., eating, listening, teaching. An event may be one of four different situation types, see accomplishment; achievement; activity; semelfactive.
Telicity: the property of a situation which indicates whether or not the situation has a natural end point; a situation is either telic or atelic.
Tense: refers to a situation’s location in time.
Viewpoint aspect: sometimes referred to simply as aspect. The traditional distinction in viewpoint aspect is between perfective and imperfective aspect. This category is concerned with how the situation is represented, not its inherent properties. See perfective; imperfective.
Help[ ]
Good Examples[ ]
- Ps 45: with a selection of verbs having fairly simple and straight-forward verbal semantics most commonly found in many psalms, this psalm can serve as a good introduction to the layer.
- Ps 118: notable cases are the mini-narrative sections (vv. 5, 10-13, 18) and the non-narrative wayyiqtol instances (vv. 14b, 21c, 27b).
- Ps 68: a harder psalm showing interesting shifts between descriptive and narrative sections (visible through the alternating stretches of no-TRM vs. TRM). Of particular interest is the section defined by vv. 10-11, where two past habitual background yiqtols frame the main actions expressed by qatal verbs. The extensive notes are also noteworthy!
Common Mistakes[ ]
- Assuming aspect not marked by the verbal form or context: it may be tempting to assume an aspect for a given verb, even though neither its form nor its surrounding context entail this aspect. For instance, the common qatal verb חָסִיתִי, though durative, may be understood, being an anterior qatal with no reference-time-movement, as either "I have taken shelter" (no aspect other than perfect) or as "I have been taking shelter" (continuous and perfect aspect). Since qatal is unspecified for aspect, we prefer the former unmarked option, which may be compatible with both a continuous ("I have been taking shelter uninterruptedly and up to this point") and a perfective reading ("I have taken a shelter for an unspecified duration of time in the past with consequences to the present time"). By doing that, we achieve a translation as CLOSE to the Hebrew text and at the same time CLEAR. Of course, if the context signals an aspect, we may assume one, e.g., in Ps 44:9 the adverbial phrase כָּל-הַיּוֹם strongly suggests an imperfective reading of the verb הִלַּלְנוּ.
- Assuming imperfectivity (progressive aspect) for a yiqtol verb : though many scholars consider imperfectivity as the defining verbal category of the yiqtol, we see posteriority as its core semantic value. It is hard to account for the numerous instances of a perfective future yiqtol when assuming a priori an imperfective aspect, especially as there exists already a verbal form whose task is to mark that aspect, namely the participle. The only aspect that is natural to the yiqtol is the iterative/habitual one, which can easily be seen as a semantic derivative of the yiqtol's posterior value. For instance, the verb אֶקְרָא in Ps 3:5 was rendered by some translations as "I was crying out" (NASB, LSB), but we preferred reading it as a habitual "[whenever] I cry out" which also fits in with the immediately preceding gnomic situation.[2]
- Assuming a gnomic aspect for a qatal verb: marking a gnomic aspect, namely general truths, is the task of the yiqtol (e.g., 1 Sam 16:7). Some scholars assign this task to the qatal as well (cf. IBHS 30.5c). However, by doing that we might end up eliminating a fundamental distinction between qatal and yiqtol which might undercut the structural interrelations within the verbal system of BH. Up to this point, we have always been able to assign to all these supposedly "gnomic qatal" cases a reading that respects the basic semantics of this form, namely as an anterior one. For instance, the series of qatal verbs in Ps 33:13-14 is often translated as gnomic ("YHWH looks down... and sees... he observes," NLT). We, however, preferred to read it as a past anecdote referring to the Flood, the echoes of which are found in other passages in the same psalm ("YHWH looked... he saw... he gazed"). By doing that, we achieved a reading in line with the normal use of qatal, on the one hand, and a coherent story-behind, on the other hand.
Additional Resources[ ]
A fuller discussion may be found here.
Cook, John. “Actionality (Aktionsart): Pre-Modern Hebrew.” In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics. Edited by Geoffrey Khan. Consulted online on 22 September 2021 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/2212-4241_ehll_EHLL_COM_00000203>.
Fleischman, Suzanne. Tense and Narrativity: From Medieval Performance to Modern Fiction. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2010. PDF here.
Gentry, Peter. “The System of the Finite Verb in Classical Biblical Hebrew.” Hebrew Studies 39 (1998): 7–39. Link here.
Hornkohl, Aaron. “Biblical Hebrew Tense–Aspect–Mood, Word Order and Pragmatics: Some Observations on Recent Approaches.” Open-access version here.
Hovav, Malka. “Lexicalized meaning and the internal temporal structure of events.” Pages 13–42 in S. Rothstein (ed.), Theoretical and Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Semantics of Aspect. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2008. Available as PDF here.
Joosten, Jan. “Do the Finite Verbal Forms in Biblical Hebrew Express Aspect?” JANES 29 (2002): 49–70.
Kroeger, Paul. Analyzing Meaning: An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics. Textbooks in Language Sciences 5. Berlin: Language Science Press, 2018. Part VI, “Tense & aspect” (pp. 377–446). This title can be downloaded here.
Levin, Beth. “Lexical Semantics of Verbs” course handouts. UC Berkeley, 2009. Course Page here. See especially “Lecture 4: Aspectual Approaches to Lexical Semantic Representation” (link). Cf. also Levin’s paper “Verb Classes within and across Languages,” 2013. (link)
McIntyre, Andrew. “Tense, Aspect and Situation Type."
Nadathur, Prerna. “Lexical Semantics” course handouts. Institut für Sprache und Information Heinrich Heine Universität, 2019–20. Course page here. See especially “Week 11: Aspect and aspectual classes I” (link).
“Tense, Aspect, and Modality with Nora Boneh (Part 1 of the Verbal Systems of the Biblical Languages series). The Biblical Languages Podcast. Biblingo, 2021. Link here.
Vendler, Z. “Verbs and Time.” Pages 97–121, Chapter 4 of Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1967. Link here.
Binnick, Robert. "Temporality and Aspectuality." Pp. 557-567 in M. Haspelmath (ed.), Language Typology and Language Universals. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 2001.
Lindstedt, Jouko. "Tense and Aspect." Pp. 768-783 in M. Haspelmath (ed.), Language Typology and Language Universals. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 2001.
Rubric[ ]
Dimension | Description |
---|---|
Completeness | The page includes every element required by the creator guidelines.
|
Quality of Analysis |
|
Engagement with secondary literature |
|
Clarity of language |
|
Formatting/Style |
|
Submitting your draft[ ]
Copy the text below into your forum submission post, entitled Verbal Semantics - Psalm ###. After posting, change your post into a wiki post so the reviewers can check the boxes. To change your forum post into a wiki post, click on the three-dot menu at the end of the text.
Click on the wrench.
Select "make wiki."
[Verbal Semantics Layer Rubric](https://psalms.scriptura.org/w/Verbal_Semantics#Rubric) |Guardian Review|Overseer Review|Final Checks|Description| | --- | --- | --- | --- | |||| **Completeness** |[ ]||| The page includes every element required by the creator guidelines. |[ ]||| Complete color-coded Hebrew text with verse numbers. |[ ]||| Morphology columns (root, stem, conjugation, PGN, suffixes) completely filled out. |[ ]||| Time columns (tense, aspect, and reference point movement) completely filled out. |[ ]||| Modality columns completely filled out (including reasons for all non-indicative modality). |[ ]||| Complete color-coded CBC. |||| **Quality of Analysis** |[ ]|[ ]|| Morphological information is accurate. |[ ]|[ ]|[ ]| The information regarding tense, aspect, and reference-point movement reflects an accurate understanding of these categories as they are explained in the Creator Guidelines. |[ ]|[ ]|[ ]| In the case of difficulties and alternatives, each view is thoroughly explained and defended in the notes section. |[ ]|[ ]|[ ]| Preferred views are well grounded in evidence in the notes section. |||| **Engagement with secondary literature** |[ ]|[ ]|| Effort was made to consult grammars, commentaries, articles, and other reference sources for difficult cases. |[ ]|[ ]|| Notes are well-researched and citations are properly documented. |||| **Clarity of language** |[ ]|[ ]|[ ]| Prose (within notes) is clear and concise. |[ ]|[ ]|[ ]| Language is not too technical so as to be inaccessible to [Sarah](https://psalms.scriptura.org/w/Personas). If a technical concept is unavoidable, it must be clearly explained. |||| **Formatting/Style** |[ ]||| All colors and symbols correspond to the colors and symbols in the [Verbal Semantics Legend](https://miro.com/app/board/uXjVO3MkiUs=/?moveToWidget=3458764545718758235&cot=14). |[ ]||| All sources are properly cited (Author Date, Page). |[ ]||| Notes are free of typos.|
Footnotes[ ]
- ↑ The cohortative morphology becomes the standard 1cs morphology for wayyiqtol forms in Late Biblical Hebrew
- ↑ A notable exception is yiqtol used in questions, which often does mark imperfective progressive aspect, e.g., מַה־תְּבַקֵּֽשׁ "What are you looking for?" (Gen 37:15) asked in yiqtol to be then answered affirmatively in the participle אֶת־אַחַ֖י אָנֹכִ֣י מְבַקֵּ֑שׁ "I’m looking for my brothers" (Gen 37:16). This special progressive aspect of yiqtol in questions can easily be construed as modal, as questions are inherently modal. Cf. Joosten 2002:54.