An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax

d The second verb in the example above, ‘entered,’ is conventionally called simple
past, while the first, ‘was reading,’ is a past progressive. The asymmetry of these
terms suggests that the perfective and progressive aspects in English are not polar
opposites, even though their meanings are distinct. The search for polar opposition,
we argue, led Michel astray, and in Hebrew we have found that masculine and
feminine genders are not simple opposites (6.3–5). These lessons will be useful in
considering the yqtl form, in relation to perfective qtl. 96
e The (historically long) prefix conjugation (yaqtulu) cannot be described solely in the
terms of imperfective aspect. In this form the notions of aspect and time both blend
(imperfective aspect in past and present time) and separate (aorist in future
time).[Page 477] Sperber and Hughes are partially right in describing it as a universal
tense. And it may signify more than a blending of tense and aspect or pure tense; it
may also signify either real or unreal moods—the indicative as well as degrees of
dubiety and volition. In short: a form that can signify any time, any mood, and
imperfective aspect (but not perfective), is not imperfective but non-perfective, “a
more than opposite” of the suffix conjugation. (The term “aorist,” meaning without
limits or boundaries, is not inappropriate.)
96 This point, the core of Jakobsonian theory, is well appreciated by F. Rundgren, Das
althebräische Verbum: Abriss der Aspektlehre (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell,
1961) 101; his aspectual opposition is based on qtl stative (qām) versus unmarked,
neutral yqtl (yaqum/yaqom). For a summary of Rundgren’s view, see Mettinger,
“Hebrew Verb System,” 74–77; and Meyer, “Aspekt und Tempus im althebräischen
Verbalsystem.” T. J. Finley misrepresents Rundgren when he summarizes his view by
saying that “since the perfective has both a negative and a neutral value with respect
to the imperfective, it is the unmarked member of the opposition whereas the
imperfective is marked”; see “The Waw-Consecutive with ‘Imperfect’ in Biblical
Hebrew: Theoretical Studies and Its Use in Amos,” Tradition and Testament: Essays
in Honor of Charles Lee Feinberg, ed. J. S. Feinberg and P. D. Feinberg (Chicago:
Moody, 1981) 241–62, at 251. In fact, Rundgren says p 101), “Das althebräische
Verbalsystem hat somit als Achse die aspektuelle privative Opposition Stativ/Fiens,
wobei der Stativ als der mekmalhafte [sic] Term der Opp. zu gelten hat…Als
merkmalloser Term hat dann das Fiens zwei Werte: non-stativisch (negativer Wert)
und weder stativisch noch kursiv (neutraler Wert).” (“The Old Hebrew verb system
thus has as its axis the aspectual privative opposition stative/fiens [cf. n. 43], in which
the stative is valued as the marked term of the opposition…As the unmarked term the
fiens thus has two values: nonstative [the negative value] and again stative-yet-cursive
[the neutral value].”) Another, implicitly markedness-based approach is that of R.
Bartelmus: qatal (previous time reference, perfect aspect) opposed to the subsequenttime-reference
forms, yiqtol and w e qatal (imperfect aspect) and wayyiqtol (perfect
aspect); see HYH: Bedeutung und Funktion eines hebräischen “Allerweltswortes” (St.
Ottilien: EOS, 1982). A. Loprieno reconstructs a primary aspectual system for
Afroasiatic as a whole in Das Verbalsystem im Ägyptischen und im Semitischen
(Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1986).