Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - RE: [b-hebrew] Consecutive waw in Lev .22:7 ?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: furuli AT online.no
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: RE: [b-hebrew] Consecutive waw in Lev .22:7 ?
  • Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 20:50:23 +0200

Dear Ken,

There are many words used by linguists and others to try to "define" aspect, but in almost all instances these words are ambiguous and tell very little about the nature of aspect (cf. Waltke-O'connor 20,2). Very few studies distinguishes systematically between what is pragmatic and what is semantic in relation to tense and aspect and between what is Aktionsart and what is aspect. Terms like complete, completed, incomplete, progressive, punctiliar etc are used, but seldom systematically described. So your question about the acceptance of linguists of my use is not an easy one, because aspect is almost always only superficially treated (I was not able to get to your link to see your approach). There is one important exception: Mari Broman Olsen (1997) "A Semantic and Pragmatic Model of Lexical and Grammatical Aspect", New York and London: Garland Publishing Inc.

Reichenbach, H. (1947) "Elements of symbolic Logic", London: MacMillan was the first to present the distinction between "the deictic center," "event time," and "reference time". Olsen developed this further and showed convincingly that the "relative tense" of Reichenbach and Comrie was unnecessary; the whole verbal system of English could be explained as a function of tense and aspect. The "deictic center" is the vantage-point from which an event is seen (often speech-time), "event time" is the time of the action from beginning to end, and "reference time" is the small part of event time that is made visible when an event is reported. Tense is the function of the deictic center and reference time, and aspect is the function of event time and reference time. Whereas there will be some disputes as to the details, I think her basic system is generally accepted. Thus tense represents deictic time and aspect represents non-deictic time.

The great advantage of Olsen's model is that tense and aspect are clearly defined in specific terms, so the vagueness of Hebrew grammars is absent. In English the perfective aspect is expressed by perfect (not simple past, which is a tense), and the imperfective aspect is expressed by the present participle. In English the interpretation of the aspects is unambiguous. When the imperfective aspect is used the event is incomplete, and when the perfective aspect is used the event is completed (Note that the event is "completed", and not just "complete"). Up to this point Olsen's discussion is excellent, but then she falls in the trap where most Hebrew grammarians have fallen: The English aspects are extrapolated to Greek (in her case) and to Hebrew. But this is impossible.

If we look at Hebrew verbs (I have made a table of their temporal references), we see that YIQTOL, WEYIQTOL, WAYTYIQTOL, QATAL and WEQATAL can refer to past, present and future, and to events that are incomplete and completed. Thus Hebrew lacks tense (grammaticalized location in time) and aspect (in the English sense of the word - the reason why I claim Hebrew has aspects is that aspectual qualities are found). The question, therefore, is whether we can describe any finer nuances of the intersection of event time by reference time (which is aspect), in order to compare Hebrew verbs with English ones (thus using the English verbal system as reference points but not in a normative way). In connection with this I have developed three parameters in order to make these finer nuances visible so we can evaluate the Hebrew verbal system. Because there are two aspects and three parameters, the English and Hebrew aspects can be compared in six different ways. Obviously, linguists cannot at present agree or disagree, because this is breaking new land; an article outlining the case will be published later this year, and my dissertation will be published next year.

The intersection of event time by reference time indicates a certain *focus*, and the three parameters are, 1) the quality of focus, 2) the angle of focus, and 3) the breadth of focus. A comparison of the English and Hebrew aspects gives the result that in three areas the Hebrew and English aspects are similar and in three areas they are different. However, in the most important area both the perfective and the imperfective aspect in the two languages are different. This means that whereas the use of the English aspects shows whether an event was completed or incomplete at reference time, this is not the case in Hebrew. Both Hebrew aspects can include the beginning and end of an event, which is impossible in English.

By way of conclusion I will say that an aspect is a subjective presentation of an event where a part of the event is made visible and all other parts are invisible. The aspects are distinguished by their "quality" (a "close-up" view of details versus a "long-distance" view without details), their breadth (how big a part of the event that is made visible), and (most important) by their angle (does reference time intersect event time before the beginning, include the beginning, come after the beginning, come before the end, or include the end?).

A sketch of my thesis is found at my web-page http://folk.uio.no/rolffu I have heard that this page is not always easy to open, but please try again.


Best regards

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo








Hi Rolf,

I am sympathetic to your view that "the map [of traditional grammars] does
not fit the terrain [of the Tanakh]" perfectly, and needs to be reexamined.
In fact my dissertation is on Hebrew Tense, Aspect and Mood between the
Bible and the Mishnah.
Yet I agree with Trevor's statement that what he calls the "converted
perfect" covers the same basic range as the imperfect, especially in
sequences in legal passages.

I realize that your argument that Hebrew is aspectual must be more
sophisticated than simply, "The verb forms do not mark tense, therefore they
must mark aspect."

Could you concisely define what you mean by "aspect"? Is your use of
"aspect" widely accepted by other linguists?

Ken Penner, McMaster/DSS
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PennerThesis

With all due respect, I beg to disagree with your words regarding
the "converted perfect ...that covers the same basic range as the
imperfect".

I therefore claim that YIQTOL , WEYIQTOL and WAYIQTOL represent the
same thing - the imperfective aspect, and that QATAL and WEQATAL
represent the same thing - the perfective aspect.

So - for those who are newcomers on the list, don't believe the
traditional grammars, but ask critical questions regarding their
conclusions . The authors of modern grammars have evidently only
looked at *some* of the verbs in the Tanakh and not *all* of them.
Often views from previous grammars are adopted without any new tests
of the conclusions. When we look at *all* the verbs of the Tanakh, it
is evident that the map does not fit the terrain.





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page