peterkirk at qaya.org
Thu Jun 10 13:59:18 EDT 2004
On 10/06/2004 08:58, furuli at online.no wrote:
> Dear Peter,
> What I tried to convey can be illustrated the following way: The verb
> $YR "to sing" is marked for durativity and dynamicity. Regardless of
> whether you use the verb as QATAL, YIQTOL, or participle, you can
> never blot out the dynamicity and durativity of the root. On the
> other hand, punctiliarity and stativity can change, because a
> punctiliar verb in Hebrew can in one context have a durative
> interpretation and a stative verb can in one context have a fientive
> interpretation. I think most Hebraists would agree with this,
> possible except in the case with punctiliarity.
I won't dispute this. But how much of it is a real discovery about
Hebrew, and how much is logically derivable from the linguistic model
and the definitions which you are using?
> Regarding aspect, my claim is that a YIQTOL will always be
> imperfective, and no context can change that. Could you please refer
> to scholars who believe in an aspectual interpretation of Hebrew verbs
> who say that YIQTOL has one aspect in one context and another aspect
> or no aspect in other contexts?
Well, only those who consider the WAY- prefix as converting the aspect.
But that is irrelevant as we are not talking about the aspect of YIQTOL
verbs. The verb in question is Niphal QATAL with a WE- prefix, isn't it?
Many consider that this prefix converts the tense. Maybe some consider
that it converts the aspect. I'm not sure.
My complaint is a different one, that you presented uncancellability of
aspect as a conclusion of your studies of Hebrew when in fact it is a
(language-independent) presupposition of your linguistic model.
peter at qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk at qaya.org (work)
More information about the b-hebrew