A few weeks ago, this blog hosted a lively discussion about tense, mood, and aspect in the verbal system of ancient Hebrew. A number of top researchers in the field participated in the debate, and clarified their points of view in the process. The exchange is informal in style, and would be hard for those concerned to revise according to the more formal conventions of peer-reviewed publications in the field. This became clear in follow-up correspondence. The exchange, therefore, will remain as is, but I thank those who suggested that it was worthy of publication elsewhere, and Ehud Ben-Zvi of JHS for his willingness to consider publication there. For the convenience of future readers, Here is the whole thing as a single downloadable file with an attached cumulative bibliography.
The debate, of course, will go on. Peter Bekins over at his great blog posted a brief summary of his take on the system in the course of reviewing an article by John Cook that has just appeared in JHS. A strength of his summary is the attempt to describe the system historically and cross-linguistically, against the background of features found in the verbal systems of cognate languages. Below the fold, I briefly describe the system “synchronically,” with a view to what it is becoming, rather than with a view to what it looked like – allegedly – “in origin.”
As I’ve thought through the issues again, I find myself agreeing with Joosten’s take on things more and more. Aside from a couple of idiosyncrasies, the following paragraphs, if I’m not mistaken, are compatible with his views.
I simplify matters by not trying to determine what a particular form “marks” as opposed to what it “expresses.” I limit myself to describing what a form can express.
Expressing Tense in Ancient Hebrew
If the communication requires future temporal reference: in a majority of cases, yiqtol or weqatal is used. The two often appear together in specific configurations.
If the communication requires past temporal reference: wayyiqtol or qatal is used. The two often appear together in specific configurations.
If the communication requires present temporal reference: qotel is used. In the case of stative and a few other verbs, and in some performative utterances, qatal is used. In questions, yiqtol may be used to express present temporal reference.
Expressing Modality in Ancient Hebrew
A variety of forms may be used to express modality: yiqtol, the cohortative-jussive-imperative subsystem, and energic forms. In contrast, qatal may be used to express “moodlessness” or omnitemporality: this usage is equivalent to the “gnomic” aorist in Greek.
Looked at from within the system, the use of yiqtol to express the indicative future (= “will” in English) and iterativity ( = “would” in English) are to be understood as examples of modality.
As Joosten argues, periphrastic haya/yihyeh + qotel is used to express durativity (= “was /will be . . . –ing” in English).
Expressing Aspect in Ancient Hebrew
The yiqtol / qatal contrast in ancient Hebrew does not express a contrast in aspect. As Joosten points out, yiqtol often has a nuance of incompleteness, but in other cases, it has a punctual, complete, or aoristic nuance. As for qatal, it regularly refers to events as complete, but that is what one typically does in narrating past events. On the other hand, it cannot be used to refer to future events which have a punctual or complete aspect.
In later Hebrew, wayyiqtol and weqatal tend to disappear. Concurrently, yiqtol / qatal / qotel come to express a full-blown three-way tense contrast, and periphrastic “tenses” are used more regularly.