[b-hebrew] aspectual binyanim
Nir cohen - Prof. Mat.
nir at ccet.ufrn.br
Wed Dec 12 17:14:49 EST 2012
>> Here I’ll throw up a trial balloon expecting it to get shot down: is it
possible that Qal and Niphal were originally coding for perfective aspect, and
Piel and Pual for imperfective? If so, then would not many, many of the verbal
pointings be wrong?
the general question of aspect encoded (in isolation) in a binyan, or in
a root, is certainly pertinent to BH. see e.g. discussions on grammatical
vs lexical aspect.
but i am not sure that your particular division can be justified. for
some roots, and in some situations, PIEL may be construed as having a
repetitive or continuous value w.r.t. its deictic center, but not
necessarily as imperfect (i.e. relative to the point of narrative).
thus, in this context we must redefine aspect as much more detailed
than mere perfect-imperfect.
a pertinent question is whether a reconstructed proto-semitic, much
older than first millenium BH, would tend to obey your rule. i dont
More information about the b-hebrew