Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Jer 38.9 as hyperbole

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] Jer 38.9 as hyperbole
  • Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 08:31:55 +0100


Dear Karl,


The SIL definition of the aspect is:

"Aspect is a grammatical category associated with verbs that expresses a temporal view of the event or state expressed by the verb."

I accept the definition, but it is so vague that it tells nothing. The same definition can be given for "tense." A definition should help us to distinguish between the property being defined and other properties. Moreover, the definition is universal (not language-specific), and this means that it is supposed to fit any aspectual language.


Please look at the definitions I have given previously:

"TENSE represents deictic time, which means that it is the relationship between reference time and the deictic center (C).

The deictic center is in most cases speech time. An event whose reference time comes before (C) is past; when reference time comes after C, the event is future; when reference time coincides with C, the event is present.

The definition applies to languages that have grammaticalized tenses.


ASPECT represents non-deictic time, which means that the time of the aspect is not seen in relation to a deictic center. Aspect is the relationship between event time and reference time. In order to apply the definition, one must get a clear understanding of what "reference time" and "event time" are.

The advantages of these definitions are:

1) A clear distinction is made between tense and aspect.

2) It is not assumed that aspect is the same in all aspectual languages.

3) Parameters are given that can be be used to see the real nature of aspect in any aspectual language.

Point 1) does not rule out that the same verb form can express both tense and aspect (e.g., Greek imperfect, which expresses both past tense and the imperfective aspect). Point 3) is particularly important, because, in English the aspects have only two kinds of expressions, but in Hebrew the aspects have nine different expressions.

Another weakness of the SIL definitions is that of terminological confusion. SIL lists ten different kinds of aspect. However, six of these are not independent entities, but they are combinations of the imperfective aspect and the so-called Venlerian categories (state, activity, accomplishment, achievement, and a semelfactive event). For example, SIL has the category "Iterative aspect," which is defined as "an aspect that expresses the repetition of an event or state." Please look at examples a), b), c), and d) below. In all of them we see the English imperfective aspect (the present participle). But only d) is iterative. The iterativity is caused by two factors, namely, by the imperfective aspect and a semelfactive (instantaneous) verb. Because two factors (one expressing aspect and the other expressing Aktionsart) must be combined for an iterative interpretation, it is confusing to classify this as "Iterative ASPECT." A better definition of d) would be "an iterative event cause by the imperfective aspect and a semelfactive verb."

a) Peter was walking in the garden. (ACTIVITY-durative and dynamic)

b) Peter was building a house. (ACCOMPLISHMENT-durative, dynamic, and telic)

c) Peter was reaching the peak. (ACHIEVEMENT-dynamic and telic)

d) Peter was knocking at the door. (SEMELFACTIVE-dynamic /"knocking" is both dynamic and durative, but the "knock"-event itself is only dynamic/)



Regarding Jeremiah 38:9: Verbs in the indicative express actions and states in the real world. Verbs that are modal express actions and states in imagines worlds. We do not find any imagined world in Jeremiah 38:9. But Ebed-melech is concerned about the life of Jeremiah, and he tells the king that the prophet "is on the point of dying," or that "he will die" if the situation continues. This is a critical situation in the real world. It is no exaggeration (hyperebole), because a person who has not eaten for a long time, is on the point of dying, and, if he does not get food, he will die.


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli





Dear Rolf:

While both you and I agree that the conjugation of Hebrew verbs into qatal and yiqtol forms does not indicate tense, as your statistics at the bottom of your last message also indicate, I don't see how you can maintain that the conjugations grammaticalize for aspect.

When I look at the definition for 'aspect' within linguistics, such as at the <http://sil.org>sil.org glossary of linguistics, it refers to time. Whereas 'tense' refers to the relationship of where the action occurs on the time line from past to future in relation to the subject, 'aspect' refers to the length along the time line that an action takes up, and to a lesser extent, whether or not the action is ongoing, or has been completed. Thus 'aspect'. like 'tense', is a time measurement. By definition. Or does <http://sil.org>sil.org use the wrong definitions?

You have mentioned 'conative aspect' in an earlier message. I don't see any relationship between conation and time, neither tense nor aspect. Is 'conative aspect' an oxymoron? While 'conative' is not listed among linguistic terms at <http://sil.org>sil.org, if it truly does indicate a linguistic understanding, would it not properly be a modality?

In this verse, does not the use of a wayiqtol indicate a modality, in this case subjunctive? "Šthat he should die because of it (being thrown into the pit)".

On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Rolf Furuli <<mailto:furuli AT online.no>furuli AT online.no> wrote:


Dear Carl,

In my view, the hyperbolic claim regarding Jeremiah 38:9 is an ad hoc explanation.


I agree there. The reason, as I see it, is that the student does not understand why it is correct that there is a wayiqtol in that position in that verse. Therefore he is making what is essentially a wild guess as to why the sentence is constructed the way it is.


The reason for it is the view that the WAYYIQTOL form is perfective, and a perfective verb should not have an egressive force or refer to the future. Therefore, when the map does not fit the terrain, the terrain is wrong. A WEQATAL would be no problem, as Randall shows.


A weqatal is wrong, as it is forcing Biblical Hebrew grammar into an Indo-European straitjacket.


Š
I have a list of 997 WAYYIQTOLs with non-past reference, 965 QATALs with future reference, 2,505 QATALs with present reference, 50 WEYIQTOLs with past reference, and 1,027 YIQTOLs with past reference.


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli

Karl W. Randolph.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page