Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Tense and aspect; was: "The use of "

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] Tense and aspect; was: "The use of "
  • Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:16:06 +0200


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






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page