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: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 09:59:00 +0100

Dear Karl,


I do not want to continue this discussion. But this is my last attempt to explain "aspect" as I understand the term.

I start with an example from lexical semantics. Lexical meaning of a Hebrew word is not found in Hebrew-English lexicons, but in the mind of people who spoke Hebrew. The letters of a written word or the sounds of a word do not have any meaning. But they signal a concept in the minds of native speakers. This concept is rather broad; it has a rather clear nucleus, but becomes more fuzzy toward the edges.

Take for example the Hebrew word NP$ (soul). In the Tanakh it may denote people, animals, and even carcasses. It may also signal abstract properties, such as life, or even the right to live as a being. All these references and senses, and several more, were included in the concept NP$ in the minds of the native speakers. When NP$ was used in a clause, the word COULD express all these references and senses. But the author wanted to make only one of them visible for his audience. In order to achieve this, he formed his context. The context does not generate any new lexical meaning, but it makes visible a part of the meaning potential of each word. For example, in Genesis 1:20, the context shows that NP$ refers to sea creatures. All the other possible references and meanings are not visible.

A clause expresses action(s) or state(s). The principal part of the clause is the verb, and a verb has a great meaning potential. When an author chooses a verb, he considers its lexical meaning. The concept signaled by a verb has a potential of senses, and the author uses the context to make visible one sense of this potential; all the others are kept invisible. The author wants to show the reader when the action occurred, past, present, or future, and in Hebrew, it is the context that makes visible one temporal references and keeps the others invisible. If the action occurred in the past, objectively speaking, the action is completed. But the author may want to stress a certain part of the action in the eyes of the reader. For example, he may want to make visible for the reader that an action in the past started at a certain point and continued. Or he may want to make visible that an action was attempted, but not carried through. Which linguistic means did a Hebrew writer have to achieve this? Please look at 1) and 2) below:

1) Exodus 33:4 NIV: "When the people heard (WAYYIQTOL) these distressing words, they began to mourn (WAYYIQTOL)."

The English translation of 1) makes visible an ingressive event: The starting point, and a part of the continuation of the action is made visible. The event is past and it was completed, but the end of this past event is not made visible for the reader. In English, the linguistic tools used, is the lexical meaning of "began" and an infinitive. In Hebrew, only one finite verb is used. The core of the lexical meaning of )BL is "mourn," and, as mentioned, the context shows that the action was completed at the time of writing. The tool used to make the ingressive meaning visible, is the imperfective WAYYIQTOL. This shows that that aspect has nothing to do with the action itself; aspect does not contribute anything the meaning of the objective action(s). But aspect is a subjective property that is used to make one part of (or the whole) action visible. If we take "time" into our discussion, the aspect tells us nothing about the temporal reference of the actions (past, present, or future). But in 1), the aspect makes visible a part of the event time (event time=the time from the beginning to the end of the event), namely, the beginning and a small part of the action. Moreover, the aspect makes visible the details of the actions during this time, namely, a continuation of mourning.

2) " Kings 6:4 NIV: "And they went (WAYYIQTOL) with him. They went (WAYYIQTOL) to the Jordan, and began to cut down (WAYYIQTOL) trees."

This example is similar to the one above. To make the beginning and a small part of the cutting action in this completed event, visible, the imperfective WAYYIQTOL is used.

In 3) and 4) below, we see a typical imperfective situation: an event occurs inside a state.

3) "While Tim was sleeping, Ann arrived."

4) Genesis 2:21NIV: "and while he was sleeping (WAYYIQTOL), he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh."

Example 3) is a typical English example of an imperfective situation. The present participle makes visible a part of the state of sleeping after the beginning and before the end, and neither beginning nor end is made visible. Example 4) is similar: A part of Adam's sleep is made visible, but not the beginning and end. An imperfective WWAYYIQTOL is used to make a part of a state visible, while keeping the beginning and end invisible.

The tools to make conative events visible, is the lexical meaning of the verb, the imperfective aspect, and our knowledge of the world (the context shows that the event was only attempted.

Best regards,

Rolf Furuli



Rolf:

On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 11:31 PM, Rolf Furuli <<mailto:furuli AT online.no>furuli AT online.no> wrote:


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.


I think the meaning was fleshed out, clarified in the subcategories linked to from the main definition.



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.

As I understand it, this gives the same meaning as I meant with my reference to the time line.


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.


This definition I find a little bit vague.

However, you do agree that 'aspect' refers to time, just that it is a different measurement of time than tense.






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page