yqtl patterns and Anson Rainey

c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Wed Jun 13 16:27:57 EDT 2001


Greetings Randall,

on 6/13/01 12:40 PM, Randall Buth wrote:

> When the Hebrew writer/speaker needed to mark tense, the Hebrew verb
> sufficed. When the Hebrew writer/speaker needed to mark aspect, the Hebrew
> verb sufficed. 

Did the verb alone suffice? Does the verb actually bear the aspect
information or does it come from somewhere else. Another way of asking this
is: Can aspect be determined independtly of the verb inflection? If it can
what level of significance should we attribute to the verb inflection as a
"marker" of verb aspect. Does the verb inflection aspect marking cooperate
with other language features to signify aspect?

>(For those suddenly confused . . .

How about those permanently bewildered.

 
> Most of the time, time is the dominant characteristic.

This can be demonstrated?

> For example, most
> prefix verbs and vav hahippux suffix verbs, when referring to the future, do
> not present an "imperfective" in-process event:  "he will be coming . . .",
> but to a singulative, perfective, future event: "he will come". That is,
> most of those verbs are not "aspectually imperfective" . . .

How can we determine that when a speaker wanted to mark time that they
didn't want ot mark aspect? And also the obvious complement, when a speaker
wanted to mark aspect that they didn't want to mark time? Again can this be
demonstrated? 

I am a little quizzical about the notion that the verb suffices to mark
aspect:

>When the Hebrew writer/speaker needed to mark aspect, the Hebrew
> verb sufficed. 

I am suggesting that "suffice" is too strong a word, since it seems to imply
that the verb can pull this off all on its own.

Peace Peace, (. . . but there is no peace)

Clay

--  
Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062





More information about the b-hebrew mailing list