[b-hebrew] no to aspect
if at math.bu.edu
Thu Feb 3 11:13:13 EST 2011
I see what you are saying, and mostly agree with it, except that I
prefer to look at it somewhat differently. For example, YI-CMAX, in
Gen. 2:5, consists of the verb CAMAX, of the root CMX, 'grow', plus
the pre-attached personal pronoun (pp), a.k.a identity marker, YI
(which I consider a truncated HIY, 'she') and standing here for ESEB
HASADEH, 'the grass of the field'.
It appears that the ancient Hebrews came early on to an agreement to
the effect that pp+act will indicate future action, but act+pp will
indicate past action (otherwise, Hebrew has no time markers). But it
needs not always be so. Thus, YI-CMAX is, on the face of it, just 'he-
grow', no more and no less. Conventionally this form is intended to
indicate future action, but we know by the time frame of the
narrative, by the laws of nature, and also by the preceding word
TEREM, that reference is here to the past.
It appears to me that also YI-CMAX of Job 5:6 is but a statement of
fact. Yet, the A-CMIAX of Ez. 29:21 is certainly a future promise.
I have the feeling that YA-AL-EH of Gen. 2:6 is "repetitive".
Isaac Fried, Boston University
On Feb 3, 2011, at 9:38 AM, Rolf Furuli wrote:
> Dear Isaac,
> We may use verbs in Genesis , chapters 1 and 2, as examples.
> Those who accept that Classical Hebrew is an aspectual language,
> accepts that YIQTOL is imperfective and QATAL is perfective.
> The QATAL of 1:1 and 2:5 have past reference, and the two YIQTOLs
> of 2:5 and the one of 2:6 have past reference as well.
> 1:1 : BR) - perfective
> 2:5: HYH and ZMH - imperfective
> 2:5 M+R - perfective
> 2:6 (LH - imperfective
> In addition to YIQTOL, I analyze WAYYIQTOL and WEYIQTIL as
> imperfective, and WEQATAL as perfective.
> Both the QATAL of 1:2 and the YIQTOL of 2:6 have past reference.
> 1:2 )MR - imperfective
> 2:6 $QH - perfective
> The conclusion of the comments above is that Classical Hebrew has
> only two conjugations. All prefix forms, with and without the
> conjunction WAW, are imperfective, and the suffix forms, with and
> without WAW, are perfective. Tense (=grammaticalized location in
> time) is nonexistent,
> Best regards,
> Rolf Furuli
> Those who view Classical Hebrew as an aspectual language
>> Can we have examples for this as they appear the Hebrew bible?
>> Isaac Fried, Boston University
>> On Feb 3, 2011, at 2:27 AM, Rolf Furuli wrote:
>>> perfective and imperfective aspect respectively?
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
More information about the b-hebrew