Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Bryan,

As a prerequisite for a fruitful discussion of aspect we must define our
parameters. In this way we can be sure we speak the same language. Let me
move in the direction of a definition by making two provocative claims:

(1) Both the perfective and the imperfective aspects are by nature open,
although the view represented by the perfective aspect in most instances
coincides with the end  of a situation and therefore seemingly is closed.

(2) Both aspects are strictly subjective viewpoints, and there is
absolutely no way by help of the Hebrew text to prove that a verb form is
perfective. In a few special instances (the subject/ object are singular
and definite count nouns and the context shows explicitly that the action
was not finished)  it is possible to prove that at verb is imperfective.

To stress discourse functions, as you do certainly is profitable, but if
the above claims be true, it is impossible to show the nature of the
aspects by help of discourse analysis.  When an author wants to communicate
a situation to a reader, he or she can make use of different semantic
planes, such as "Aktionsart", aspect, voice and mood. The author weaves
these together into a discourse, and because of a similar presupposition
pool and the linguistic convention of the day, he or she can convey the
message. We cannot, in my view, say that in this particular kind of
discourse we expect a perfective verb, and therefore this particular verb
most likely is perfective. While I strongly claim that words have
individual meaning without a context, I claim that communication is the
interpaly of all the semantic planes and the other factors. This means that
we cannot take one factor, say "the mainline of (past time) narrative" and
use it to define another factor, say aspect.

Because it can be demonstrated that some wayyiqtols and som yiqtols are
imperfective ( in my sense of the word) I draw the conclusion that all
wayyiqtols and yiqtols are imperfective. Based on this, I further draw the
conclusion that all weqatals and qatals are perfective. BTW, nobody has
ever given a plausible explanation of how or why the conjunction wa/e can
change the aspect of a verb to the very opposite. There is a growing
consensus that wayyiqtol is not an aspect but the preterite tense  (See for
instance E. Lipinski, 1997, Semitic Languages Outline of a Comparative
Grammar, p 341), because it can be equated with the Accadian iprus and the
short prefix forms of Phoenician and Ugaritic. However, this view may be
based on a confusion of "past time" and "past tense", because, to the best
of my knowledge, there exists no work where this difference systematically
has been studied. It is just taken for granted that past use means past
tense.


Regards
Rolf

Rolf Furuli
Lecturer in Semitic languages
University of Oslo
rolf.furuli AT east.uio.no



>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
>
>---
>You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: $subst('PurgeID')
>To unsubscribe, forward this message to
>$subst('Email.Unsub')