Linguistic assumptions, long (Rolf, also Dave)
furuli at online.no
Tue Jul 4 05:36:33 EDT 2000
I am not sure who the people you mention are and what is the sense of
"'core' of semantic-functional significance". But regarding aspect, the
situation i simple as far as English is concerned. The characteristic of
the imperfective aspect (not only its 'core'), represented by present
participle, is that reference time intersects event time at the nucleus
(before the end). The characteritic of the perfective aspect, represented
by the perfect, is that reference time intersects event time at the coda.
This is a non-cancelable relationship because it is always like that.
Therefore Broman Olsen uses the term "semantic meaning".
The definition is very clear, and it can be falsified by finding examples
where the relationship between ET and RT is different from the definition.
We cannot presume that the situation in Hebrew is similar to English, but
because the definition is so clearcut, I cannot think of a better model by
which to test Hebrew aspect.
University of Oslo
>> People who would never dream of doing a concordant translation in terms of
>> lexical semantics will turn right around and defend to the death a
>> translation in terms of verb aspect marking or some other feature of syntax.
>Just after sending this I noticed that this was not well stated. These
>people really are not promoting concordant translation, rather, they are
>promoting the idea that verb aspect marking has some "core" of
>semanitc-functional significance which can be traced through ever instance
>of use. This may be the same idea as what you folks are calling a
>"non-cancelable" semanitc-functional significance. If that is what you mean
>by this term then I am siding with the people who say there is NO
>"non-cancelable" semanitc-functional significance associated with ANY formal
>feature such as verb aspect marking.
>There is a certain vague similarity between this "non-cancelable"
>semanitc/functional significance and concordant translation but it is not a
>good way to illustrate the issue. Since those who hold to the
>"non-cancelable" semanitc/functional significance of verb aspect marking
>would probably not end up doing anything like concordant translation as a
>result of holding this position.
More information about the b-hebrew