Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Bryan Rocine" <596547 AT ican.net>]

B-Haverim,
I am sorry to send this post a second time, but I noticed that Rolf's
quotes were indistinguishable from mine.  I am not sure why, but I think
the letter is too complicatyed to leave that way.  This one separates
Rolf's words from my own.
 
 Hi Rolf,
 
 You wrote
> 
> 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?
> 
This is my point in a way.  Smith maintains that all language express
aspect, but all do not grammaticize aspect.  W and O'C maintain that BH
grammaticizes aspect(as defined by Comrie), and you say no (to
grammaticized aspect as defined by either Smith or Comrie).  I am inclined
to agree with you and not disagree with Smith or Comrie.  I think my
problem may be that W and O'C may not have applied Comrie's theory to BH
very well, partly as a result of their very conscious choice to shun
discourse analysis(see pp. 53 ff).

A little terminological question:  Why do you want to put your two
subjective viewpoints under the parameter 'aspect'?  Because Brockelmann
did?  By default(i.e., because you don't know what else to call it)?  It
bucks against the experts of aspect, no?


> 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):
> 
Smith presents the above as categories of *situation aspect* which is
distinct and independent from *viewpoint aspect*.  The *situation aspect*
in a sentence is obtained from the verb constelation, e.g.
[John-won-(sing.)race] is a verb constellation that obtains 'achievement'
as a situation aspect as you have noted above.  The *viewpoint aspect*,
being independent from this *situation aspect* can make or not make visible
the endpoint of the accomplishment. Compare:

"John won a race"  --> Situation aspect = achievement(telic) and  viewpoint
aspect = perfective

"John was winning a race"  --> Situation aspect = achievement and viewpoint
aspect = imperfective

In both cases the situation aspect is telic because the winning of a single
race has a natural endpoint.  But in the perfective the endpoint is made
visible and in the imperfective the situation is left open.  We can test
the sentences for perfectivity by adding the phrase "...but he didn't
finish."  The addition will only make sense with the imperfective
viewpoint.  Compare:

"John won a race but didn't finish it" --doesn't make sense

"John was winning a race but didn't finish it" --makes perfect sense

> Neh. 3:13 ¶ Hanun 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.

Excuse me, I am not sure just exacly how to weave my answer into your post.
 I'm just going to put my response here so it is visually near the
translation.  I'll stay with Smith for now.  Let's pretend we know little
about the meanings of the verb forms(not hard to do since you picked such
an curious passage!)  Let's try something provocative:  For the moment
let's assign a viewpoint aspect of *imperfectivity* to the affixed forms
and *perfectivity* to the prefixed forms.  What happens to the translation?
Nothing happens to the fact that these situations are "ACCOMPLISHMENTS"
because this is their *situation aspect* obtained by  the verb
constellations.  But something does happen to the discourse.  It gets
"organized."  Observe:

"Hanun and the inhabitants of Zanoah were repairing(Imp. qatal) the V.
Gate.  When they were rebuilding(Imp qatal) it they set(Perf wayyiqtol) its
doors, etc.  Then they repaired(Perf wayyiqtol)...the wall..."
"As for Malichijah...he was repairing((Imp qatal) the D. Gate.  He
rebuilt(Perf yiqtol) it and set(Perf yiqtol) its doors, etc."
"As for Shallum...he was repairing(Imp qatal) the F. Gate.  He rebuit(Perf
yiqtol) it, and set(Perf yiqtol) its doors, etc."

Such an interpretation would imply that the activities Hanun, Malichijah
and Shallum were simulataneous.

I AM NOT SAYING THE QATAL IS IMPERFECTIVE REALLY or that the prefixed forms
are perfective.  It just an experiment to show what happens.  I realize we
could have assigned the viewpoint aspects to the morphemes in te opposite
way and obtained interesting results.  My experiment has not proven
anything.  What I am suggesting is four-fold:  

(1)The morphemes have a somewhat fixed semantic value related to viewpoint,
 

(2)The distribution of the morphemes(viewpoints) is constrained by
discourse conventions shared by speaker and audience, 

(3)BH may well have several morphemes without viewpoint aspectual meaning
*in the Carlota Smithian sense*,

and (4) It is very difficult to prove what the morphemes mean without any
native speaker(s) of BH present to interview.   

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)


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