Alleged Non-Past Uses of Qatal in Classical Hebrew (review)

Hebrew Studies 45 (2004) 302 Reviews serious attempt to apply discourse-linguistic methods more systematically to well defined groups of Biblical Hebrew prose texts. However, it focuses too much on statistics and ignores the major problem of word order of each clause type as well as the correlation of word order to the choice of verbal forms in verbal clauses. The preference for a certain clause pattern in each narrative or discourse type and the choice of a certain word order are intertwined in Biblical Hebrew. In addition, the plentiful nuances of aspect, tense, and modality, expressed by all combinations of prefix and suffix conjugation verbs with or without waw are more complex than admitted in this study. New theories regarding the semantic complexity of verb forms continue to appear. One theory involves the concept of relative time, which is presented by T. Goldfajn, in Word Order and Time in Biblical Hebrew Narrative (Oxford 1998), and by G. Hatav, in The Semantics of Aspect and Modality, Evidence from English and Biblical Hebrew (Amsterdam & Philadelphia 1997, pp. 3–5). Neither the concept of relative time nor these two works are mentioned by the author. It seems that a perfect solution to the question of verbal usage in Biblical Hebrew is not yet available. Tamar Zewi University of Haifa Haifa, Israel tzewi@univ.haifa.ac.il ALLEGED NON-PAST USES OF QATAL IN CLASSICAL HEBREW. By Max Rogland. SSN 44. Pp. vii + 164. Assen: Van Gorcum, 2003. Cloth, $57.72. € 49,00. This study deals with the form qatal in Biblical Hebrew within a synchronic analysis. In the introductory chapter, the author provides a brief overview concerning the notions of tense and aspect in language. For aspect, he adopts the (im)perfective distinction. For tense, he adopts the absolute/relative distinction of Comrie. Rogland reanalyzes it within the framework of Reichenbach’s analysis, which defines tenses in terms of speech-, event-, and reference-time (cf., H. Reichenbach, Elements of Symbolic Logic [New York: Macmillan, 1947]; B. Comrie, Tense [Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1985]). The author then briefly summarizes the well-known dispute concerning the verbal forms in Biblical Hebrew. As he mentions, one main approach sees the forms as marking tenses or both tenses and aspects. The competing approach regards Biblical Hebrew as a tenseless language whose verb forms mark only aspects (and maybe moods). Rogland adopts the approach that the Hebrew Studies 45 (2004) 303 Reviews forms may mark both tense and aspect. His main aim is to analyze the fientive qatal, which he understands to be semantically marked as absolute or relative past, but aspectually unmarked. Accordingly, qatal clauses refer to events lying in the past either with respect to speech-time or another reference-time in the past or the future. For the other forms, Rogland stipulates that qotel and yiqtol are imperfective, and in opposition to qatal they are non-past. He treats the waw-prefixed forms wayyiqtol and weqataltí as syntactic variations for qatal and yiqtol, respectively. Rogland does not accept the thesis that the verb forms function differently in prose and poetry. Neither does he limit his conclusions to standard Biblical Hebrew. He therefore aims to show that in both poetry and prose throughout the Hebrew Bible, qatal clauses can be interpreted as referring to past events. The challenge he faced with his endeavor was to show that qatal refers to the past and also in those cases that appear as non-past situations, namely, the so-called “gnomic,” “performative,” and “prophetic” perfects. In chapter 2, Rogland discusses the use of qatal in gnomic statements as they appear in proverbs, claiming that this use is better to be considered as “general-truth.” He then discusses the notion of “general-truth” statements in language and shows that speakers may address a “general past” just as they may speak of a “general present.” His main point is that the appearance of qatal in proverbs does not necessarily indicate that it is a present tense because such proverbs may be interpreted as referring to past situations. In chapter 3, Rogland discusses the so-called “Prophetic Perfect,” concluding that this title is a misnomer. He shows that this is a blanket...