Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - (no subject)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "B. Rocine" <596547 AT ican.net>
  • To: b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Cc: aspect AT ican.net, and AT ican.net, the AT ican.net, universal AT ican.net, discourse AT ican.net, paradigm AT ican.net
  • Subject: (no subject)
  • Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 22:12:43 -0400


Hi,
Are there any 'aspectniks' at home? Wanna come out and play?

Here's an English illustration-text borrowed from Waltke and O'Connor,
Bernard Comrie, et. al.:

John was reading when I entered.

The [entering] is viewed in its entirety, beginning, duration, and
ending rolled into one view. That's the 'closed' view or perfective. In
contrast, only part of the reading is viewed, some "middle" portion of
it. It's "open" because we have no view of one or either of its
beginning or ending point. The [reading] is therefore viewed
imperfectively.

As is the case paradigmatically, in the John-sentence above the
imperfective('was reading') provides background, a situation which is
simultaneous with the perfective('entered') . In terms of the
Universal Paradigm of discourse, it is the perfective that moves the
narrative forward or moves narrative time forward. The perfective form
typically carries the mainline or backbone of a narrative.

So, to get comfortable, let's make some generalizations about BH. Let's
ignore some exceptions for a moment and call the wayyiqtol perfective.
As we expect from the Universal Paradigm, this perfective form does
indeed carry the mainline of (past time) narrative. We also know that
the BH predicative participle has the discourse function of giving
backgrounded activities, and I would say that the predicative participle
is the BH verb form representing imperfective aspect par excellance.
Might I translate the John-sentence into BH like this using participle
for background and wayyiqtol for 'mainline'?

yonatan qore) va)abo)

see Gen 19:1 velot yo$eb...vayyar) lot

Well, all that is said for a frame of reference. My primary inquiry in
this letter concerns the qatal. Waltke and O'Connor call the qatal the
'perfective' form. (I realize that many of you may know the qatal as
the 'perfect' rather than the 'perfective' but there is a pretty
significant difference between the two names which we can probably
clarify if anyone wants.) I think it's pretty clear that qatal often
has perfective meaning. However, it also usually has *discourse
functions* which are more in line with the paradigmatic functions of
imperfective forms. For instance, does it not often give backround?
Take for instance 1 Sam 14:19

wayhi [ad diBBer $a)ul...

or Gen 32:31

vayyizrax lo ha$$eme$ ka)a$er (abar )et P-nu)el vehu) colea( (al y-reKo

or how about a simulatnaous situation as in Gen 13:12

)abram ya$ab...velot ya$ab

Aren't these imperfective qatals?

Isn't Gen 22:1, ha)elohim nissah )et )abraham 'open'? It seems that
the qatal does not view the situation as an event, it does not move the
narrative time forward, it lacks a view of the situation's endpoint.
Wouldn't it make a lot of sense to translate Gen 22:1 with the English
progressive(imperfective): "Then after these things (the) God was
testing Abraham when He said..."

Could it be that Waltke and O'Connor jumped too fast when they called
'perfective' the form traditionally known as the 'perfect'? Might they
have been more heaviliy influenced by tradition than Bernard Comrie?


Shalom, Bryan



  • (no subject), B. Rocine, 08/10/1998

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page