Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Bryan,

As you know, I used the system of Carlota Smith and her terminoly in my
thesis about wayyiqtol. This system, which you refer to with approval, is
very fine for English, French and Russian to which she applied it. It can
account for most of the Hebrew verbal phenomena but not all. The problem is
that the *beginning* of an event or state can be included ("made visible"
in my words) in yiqtol, wayyiqtol, qatal and weqatal, and the end can also
be included  in the same "four conjugations" (which I view as just two
conjugations). If this is true, how can the beginning and end be the real
distingusihing points between the imperfektive and the perfective aspect?

It seems to me that aspect and "Aktionsart" to a great degree is confused
in Hebrew studies, just as is the case in many Greek studies. Most of the
phenomena ascribed to aspect really belong to "Aktionsart" or to "extended
Aktionsart" (procedural characteristics). The last terms refer to the
property of +/- telic.
According to C. Smith there are five such situations:

STATES:         static, durative,        non-telic      - ex: "love God"

ACTIVITY:               non-static, durative,     non-telic      - ex:
"walk in the garden"
ACCOMPLISHMENT: non-static, durative,  telic     _ ex: "build a house"
SEMELFACTIVE:   non-static,  non-durative, non-telic- ex: "knock at the
door"
ACHIEVEMENT:    non-static,  non-durative, telic  - ex: "reach the top"

It is here where we find the slot "end included" ("telic")/"end not
included" ("non-telic") and not with aspects. Let us apply this to
Nehemiah 3:13-15 (RSV):

Neh. 3:13 ¶ Hanun and the inhabitants of Zanoah repaired (xzq, QATAL) the
Valley Gate; they rebuilt (bnh, QATAL) it and set its doors, its bolts, and
its bars, and repaired (´md, WAYYIQTOL) a thousand cubits of the wall, as
far as the Dung Gate.
Neh. 3:14 ¶ Malchijah the son of Rechab, ruler of the district of
Beth-haccherem, repaired (xzq, QATAL) the Dung Gate; he rebuilt ( bnh,
YIQTOL) it and set (´md, WEYIQTOL) its doors, its bolts, and its bars.
Neh. 3:15 ¶ And Shallum the son of Colhozeh, ruler of the district of
Mizpah, repaired (xzq, QATAL) the Fountain Gate; he rebuilt ( bnh, YIQTOL)
it and covered (+ll, WEYIQTOL) it and set  (´md, WEYIQTOL) its doors, its
bolts, and its bars; and he built (no verb) the wall of the Pool of Shelah
of the king's garden, as far as the stairs that go down from the City of
David.

To what is the end connected in these verses, to "Aktionsart" (and
procedural characteristics) or to the conjugations (aspects) which are
supposed to be four in number?
I find that all events in these verses are "ACCOMPLISHMENTS". They are
non-static, durative and telic. They are part of a narrative, which means
that at the time of writing they were all accomplished. And these
accomplished events are expressed by 4 QATALS, 2 YIQTOLS, 1 WAYYIQTOL and
three WEYIQTOLS.

So I ask:
(1) Which extra information do the aspects give us, which we do not find by
help of the "Aktionsart", procedural characteristics and the narrative
context?
(2) What actually does the aspectual distinction "the end reached/the end
not reached" mean? In the case of all these verbs the end was objectively
reached? Does this show that all are perfective? And if so, does not
morphological form count more than discourse function? Or, can verbs be
imperfective even though the actions they describe, objectively speaking
are accomplished?
(3) The verb +ll is piel. There are 2216 occurrences of Piel  perfect and
1508 occurrences of Piel imperfect in the Bible. If Waltke/O´Connor is
correct in their description of Piel, this means that the end of the action
is passed in all Piel perfects and imperfects which can be viewed as
resultative. So again, how can the *end* be the real distinguishing factor?


Regards
Rolf

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








>Hi Rolf,
>
>You said,
>>
>> 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:
>
>Do you mean that we cannot have a fruitful discussion unless we use *your*
>definitions?  Because I thought I defined terms.
>
>>
>> (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.
>
>If there is an inconsistency between traditional notions of the meaning of
>the BH verb forms or Waltke and O'Connor's notion of the meanings of the
>verb forms and the Universal Paradigm of discourse, then we may yet use
>this inconsistency to cast doubt upon the traditional views.  In this way
>we open the door to the "two-subjective-viewpoints" view.
>
>>
>> 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.
>
>Hmmm.  Paul Hopper(_Tense-Aspect:Between Semantics and Pragmatics_,1982):
>"...the fundamental notion of aspect is not a local-semantic one but is
>discourse pragmatic and is characterizable as _completed event in the
>discourse_"(p. 5, italics original)  The idea is that aspect is defined by
>the parameter [plus or minus 'view of the endpoint'].  Carlota Smith(_The
>Parameter of Aspect_1997):"Pragmatic interpretation makes an essential
>contribution to the interpretation of the (aspectual) viewpoint.  At the
>pragmatic level, semantic meaning interacts with such factors as
>contrastive value, context, and rhetorical emphasis"(p. 61) and again,
>"Advancing the plot is perhaps the most basic use of perfectives in
>narrative...In narratives, imperfective sentences may present situations
>that provide a background for the main events.  They present open
>situations, not closed events which move the narrative forward...More
>specifically, imperfective sentences tend to provide descriptions and other
>information, and they present situations that are simultaneous with the
>main events"  (p. 92, see also entire section 4.4.4).
>
>So let me re-work the old proverb so you'll like it, Rolf:  "If it quacks
>like a swan, and it waddles like a swan, and water rolls off its duck like
>a swan..."  When it is clear that a BH verb form is advancing narrative
>time, it must by definition be perfective *in that context*.  Yes?  No?

NO!
>
>It is my contention for BH that it is the _sentence in context_ which has
>perfectivity or not and not the morphology alone.  I.e.  It is not the
>prefixed or affixed forms in isolation which have aspectual meaning as W
>and O'C assert.  Rather, it is "compositional rules" which produce
>perfectivity or imperfectivity at something higher than the local level.
>What then are we to think that the BH morphology of the finite verbs means?
> Nothing?  They're all aorists?, universal tenses?  I don't think so.
>Hopper also writes, "A form must have a consistent value or else
>communication is impossible; we cannot have linguistic forms which derive
>all their meanings from context" (p. 4).
>
>So I think if the popular view that the BH finite verb forms represent
>aspects in and of themselves is disposed of, we are free to ask what the
>forms do mean, and we are free to consider "subjective viewpoints" as a
>possibility.  But I shy from calling "subjective viewpoints" aspects.
>Soon I'll tell what I think the BH verb forms mean.  Gotta run now.
>
>Take care,
>Bryan
>
>> Regards
>> Rolf
>
>>Rocine wrote:
>> >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
>> >
>
>
>B. M. Rocine
>Associate Pastor
>Living Word Church
>6101 Court St. Rd.
>Syracuse, NY 13208
>
>315-437-6744(w)
>315-479-8267(h)