Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Verbal Aspect (was Tenses - Deut 6:4)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Rolf Furuli" <furuli AT online.no>
  • To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Verbal Aspect (was Tenses - Deut 6:4)
  • Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 09:51:51 -0000

Dear David,

Please see my comments below.

----- Original Message ----- From: "David Kummerow" <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2007 8:46 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Verbal Aspect (was Tenses - Deut 6:4)


Gday Rolf,

See below:


As for the statement that "One Hebrew verb (the imperfective WAYYIQTOL)
is used to convey the force (an action + a resultant state) which only
can be expressed in English by the use of two verbs", the same applies.
It is only "imperfective" aspect because you have given a different
definition. Most wayyiqtols are prima facie perfective to most of the
rest of us. My feeling it is that you should move away from using the
aspectual terminology of "(im)perfective" aspect, because you operate
with you own definitions. You should create your own labels because your
definitions have moved considerably from agreed meanings. When you use
"imperfective" you mean something entirely different from most of the
rest of us. This is incredibly confusing, and I feel that you are no
longer describing aspect.

To use "agreed meaning" is somewhat too bold, since there are more than 20
different definitions of aspect that have been used in the scholarly
literature. You and I will never agree, since our basics are different, but a
cordial discussion is still possible. The basic difference between us is
that you start with an arbitrary definition of aspect and applies it to the
Hebrew verbs, while I start without any aspectual definition and reach my
definition by the application of fundamental linguistic parameters to the
Hebrew verbal system. You "force" a definition on the Hebrew verbs, I get my
definition from the verbs. When the parameters are defined, my approach
should in no way be confusing. The basic parameters, "deictic center,"
"reference time," and "event time" that I use was first proposed in 1947 by
Reichenback and has since been used in different linguistic studies. I
define tense as the relationship between the deictic center and reference
time, thus, tense represents deictic time. I define aspect as the
relationsship between event time and reference time; since the deictic
center is not involved, aspect represents non-deictic time. The linguistic literature speaks of TAM relationships (tense-moo-aspect) in the languages of the world. The relationship between event time and reference time is not tense, and it is not mood, butit is the third category,namely, aspect. So I need no new label. The advantage of using the mentioned fundamental parameters is that the aspects in any language can be analysed, and the similarities and differences can be mapped. I would say that just a cursory knowledge of English and Hebrew show that their aspectual systems are very different; and then we have Russian which is still very different.


Because we operate from different methodologies to begin with, I feel we
will never agree.


2. With "complete" vis-a-vis "completed" I'm simply trying to get away
from tying aspect to time - "completed" to me implied just that, a
completed action and hence one performed in the past.

RF
It is very fine to skip "completed," which entails time. But you have not
answered my question: What is a "complete" action?


Only that the action is conceptualised "completely": it has a beginning
and an end, without recourse to its internal makeup. This is the
conventionally agree definition, is it not? If (im)perfective does not
fit for BH, it does not mean that the definitions of aspect need to be
redefined to suit. It may just mean, as I would argue, that the picture
is complex, as tense is starting to figure within the verbal system as
well.

RF
Here we are at the crucial point, the difinitions of aspect. As already
mentioned, there are more than twenty different definitions of aspect, so
how can we know which to choose for Hebrew? Let us test your definitions
bycomparing Genesis 1 and 2,

1:1 QATAL: create

1:7 WAYYIQTOL: make

2:5 YIQTOL: sprout

2:6 YIQTOL: ascend

All these verbs have a beginning and an end. How can we know that "create"
is conceptualised "without recourse to its internal makeup" but "sprout" and
"ascend" are conceptualised "with recourse to its internal makeup"? And what
about "make"? If these verbs are not typical examples, you are free to
choose any verbs in the Tanach to demonstrate your aspectual definitions. If
you cannot demonstrate this distinction on the basis of the verbs themselves, your aspectual definitions are
arbitrary and we must ask for a reason to use them at all.




By the way, when is your article in ZDMG scheduled for publication? I
checked the latest issue last week and it still didn't appear.

The bibliography is: R. Furuli (2005) "The Verbal System of Classical Hebrew An Attempt to Distinguish Between Semantic and Pragmatic Fctors". In, Current Issues in the Analysis of Semitic Grammar and Lexicon I, eds L. Edzard and J. Retsö, Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes Band LVI, 3, pp. 205-231.

Regards,
David Kummerow.


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page