yqtl patterns and Anson Rainey
c stirling bartholomew
cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Wed Jun 13 16:27:57 EDT 2001
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
I am a little quizzical about the notion that the verb suffices to mark
>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)
Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
More information about the b-hebrew