[b-hebrew] Tense and aspect; was: "The use of "
Rolf Furuli
furuli at online.no
Thu Apr 23 10:16:06 EDT 2009
Dear George,
You have made a logical observation and posed a good question.
When we start our study of a dead language, we do not know anything
about it, and it may be different from languages that we know. In
modern languages narratives are expressed by past -tense verbs, or in
aspectual languages, by the perfective aspect. When I analyze the
(narrative) WAYYIQTOL as imperfective, this has no parallel in modern
languages. This indicates that I at the outset cannot know the nature
of narrative verbs in Classical Hebrew on the basis of modern
parallels.
In discussions on this list I have used terms that are familiar to
the list-members, such as "past tense" (although many do not have a
clear understanding of what tense is). However, in my own studies I
start with a different set of parameters, to the effect that I avoid
both the concept "tense" and the concept "aspect" in the first stages
of my study. This means that when I on a later stage introduce
"tense" and "aspect," the understanding of these concepts are based
on the relationship between the other parameters. Therefore, I avoid
the problem you portray. I did not assume that Hebrew narratives are
expressed by verbs with past reference.
In posts to the list I try to express myself as clear as possible,
avoiding expressions that are difficult to understand. Therefore I
used "tense" rather than mentioning my basic parameters. But let us
give them a try:
I define tense as the relationship between the deictic center (C) and
reference time (RT), and I define aspect as the relationship between
reference time and event time (ET). Tense expresses deictic time and
aspect expresses non-deictic time. Without doubting the knowledge and
experience of the list-members, I do not think that this is readily
grasped by most, simply because the terms and their meaning are
unfamiliar.
The mentioned parameters are extremely important in my view. For
example, the following definitions of "aspect" can be found in the
literature:
punctual
aorist
progressive
imperfect
linear perfect
inchoative
ingressive
continuative
egressive
resultative
terminative
iterative
momentaneous
durative
cursive
effective
finitive
frequentative
completed
uncompleted
complete
incomplete.
Aktionsart terms and other linguistic terms are mingled to a very
strange soup! Several of the terms are elusive, and those using them
are hard pressed when they are challenged to define them.
By using the relationship between E and RT as parameters I did not
need to use any of these definitions or other aspectual definitions
when I started; I simply used E and RT. On the basis of the
relationship between E and RT it is possible to create three other
parameters that can be used to compare the properties of aspects in
different languages. And because there are two aspects, the languages
can be compared in six different ways. Having applied this to English
and Classical Hebrew, I found that in three areas the aspects are
similar and in three areas they are different. But because the two
languages are different in the most important areas, the nature of
the aspects in Hebrew and English are very different. So my
definition of Hebrew aspects comes as a result of applying E and RT
on Hebrew verbs (but my definition of tense is the standard
linguistic definition). Because of this I have been able to avoid the
most important error in the studies of Hebrew verbs, namely, that one
starts with a modern aspectual definition and then applies it to
Classical Hebrew.
Best regards,
Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo
>Rolf,
>
>I wonder whether you are accepting an assumption about Hebrew
>without subjecting it to scrutiny. Please correct me if I'm wrong in
>how I'm reading you:
>
>You ask whether WAYYIQTOL represents past tense. However, in asking
>this, are you importing the standard convention of Indo-European
>languages, which tell stories in past tense? That is, how do you
>know that Hebrew tells stories with a basic past reference? How do
>you know that Hebrew doesn't tell stories in present tense, such
>that WAYYIQTOL is effectively a present tense?
>
>Feel free either to answer, question, or go to town on me.
>
>
>Regards,
>
>GEORGE ATHAS
>Moore Theological College (Sydney, Australia)
>www.moore.edu.au
>
More information about the b-hebrew
mailing list