Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: Fw: aspect and the universal discourse paradigm

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
  • To: b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re: Fw: aspect and the universal discourse paradigm
  • Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 13:49:50 +0200


Dear Bryan,

I will not be able to continue our discussion much longer. Our semester
starts in one week. I will be teaching of four languages and this requires
much preparation. I suppose that you also will be busy teaching.


>(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.


I agree with all your four points above, except that I will delete
"somewhat" from (1). But I suppose we will interprete (1), (2), and (3)
somewhat differently.


>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?

The nature of aspect as I view it is very close to the standard definition
of aspect as described by Comrie, Smith and others. It is simply adjusted
to the Hebrew text in order to let the map fit the terrain. You give the
normal definition in a fine way in your posting "aspect", and it looks
somewhat like this (B= beginning, E: end, crosses=focus of aspect.

PERFECTIVE ASPECT: xxBxxxxxxxxxExx
IMPERFECTIVE ASPECT: --B-xxx-------E--
--B---xxx-----E--
--B-------xxx-E--

This means that the perfective aspect is seen from the outside (at some
distance) from the situation, while the imperfective aspect is seen from
the inside, the reporter is in the middle of the situation. What did
Carlota Smith do when she discovered sentences in French (and other
languages) which did not fit her scheme?

She found sentences such as -xBxxxxx-----E--
--B--------xxxExx

She postulated a third aspect, a neutral one: Says she ("The Parameter of
Aspect" 1991, p 123) : "The neutral viewpoint includes one endpoint, the
perfective both endpoints, the imperfective neither"

The problem with Hebrew is that much more does not fit the scheme. Assuming
that the Hebrew prefix form is imperfective and the suffix form perfective,
we find the following situations:

PERFECTIVE xxBxxxxxxxxxExx (beginning/end incl.)
xxBxxxx------E-- (beginning/part
incl.)
--Bxxx--------E-- (ingressive)
--B-----xxxxxExx ( part/end incl)
--B-xx-xx-xx-E--
(frequentative/habitual)

IMPERFECTIVE xx-B-----------E-- (conative)
-xBxxx-------E-- (beginning/part incl.)
--Bxxx-------E-- (inceptive)
--B- xxx------E-- (progressive)
--B------xxxxE-- (egressive)
--B-------xxxExx (resultative)
--B xx-xx-xx-E--
(frequentative/habitual)



Leaving alone the consecutive form for a moment, and accepting that qatal
in all cases has the same meaning and yiqtol in all cases has the same
meaning, there is overwhelming evidence that this meaning is subjective,
i.e. the same event can be described by both without altering its objective
contents or constituency. Because one morpheme - qatal - is responsible
for all five situations above, and one morpheme - yiqtol - is responsible
for all seven situations above, we cannot postulate one imperfective and
one perfective aspect and *several* neutral ones. Because there are just
two morphemes there must be two aspects. One factor complicating the
picture is that some imperfective situations are quite similar to the
perfective ones (for example ingressive and inceptive), but there ought to
be some semantic difference.

To account for what I find in the Hebrew text, I adjust the distance and
scope somewhat from the "universal" definition of aspect. Instead of
demanding that the reporter using the imperfective aspect must view
him/herself inside the event or state, I say the person is *close by*. And
instead of demanding that a reporter using the perfective aspect, thus
seeing the event or state at some distance, must have his or her eyes fixed
on both beginning or end, I say the perspective is broader but can be
turned eiether toward the beginning or end or include both. Based on this I
get the following definition for Hebrew aspect:


THE IMPERFECTIVE ASPECT IS A CLOSEUP VIEW OF A SMALL PART OF AN EVENT WITH
DETAILS VISIBLE, AND THE PERFECTIVE ASPECT IS A BROADER VIEW FROM SOME
DISTANCE WITH DETAILS NOT VISIBLE.

The advantage of this definition is that it is close to the universal
definition of aspect but at the same time accounts for all we see in the
Hebrew text. By using this definition we can say that YIQTOL and WAYYIQTOL
are imperfective and QATAL and WEQATAL are perfective without the need of
explaining a single exception. There is no exception!

Let me add that the interplay of a particular aspect with "Aktionsart",
procedural characteristics, the verbal arguments (subject/object) together
with the linguistic convention of the day and a knowledge of the world
communicates particular nuances to the hearers or readers. In many
instances we are not able to see any difference by the use of one aspect
instead of the other.

Let us now apply this to Neh 3:13-15:

You wrote:
>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.

It is clear that the setting is past. The reason for the choice of verb
forms in these verses is in my view basically linguistic cenvention
(discourse factors), and the semantic distinction is connected with
Aktionsart and not with aspect.

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.

"The Valley gate" and "they" stand at the front of the clause, giving them
some stress. Therefore are the two QATALS chosen (beginning and end
included). The WAYYIQTOL follows the QATAL and there is no consecution, but
both acts occurred simultaneously, or rather, the verbs are two expressions
for the same description. The WA is a simple conjunction. The focus on a
small part of the verb give no more information than if a perfect was
chosen, but a perfect would not be the natural choice, taking into account
the linguistic convention of the day.

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.


The first QATAL is chosen because "the Dung gate" is stressed (beginning
and end included). But what is the meaning of the YIQTOL? In v 13 we find
"build" (QATAL) with "they" as subject standing before the verb. Is there a
difference between "build" (YIQTOL) of v 14 with "he" as subject standing
before the verb? In both instances are the persons stressed, but the
*nature* of the action (its Aktionsart) is exactly the same. I am not able
to see any semantic difference here between the "distance view" and the
"close-up view" (but see comments on v 15), so I suggest the difference is
a matter of style (This accords with my definition of aspect, but is more
difficult with the universal definition. The hayu yo$ebim of 3:26 deserves
your definition of imperfectivity, often expressed by English past
continuous). The following WEYIQTOL is joined with the conjunction WE, and
the actions of the actions of "build" and "set up" occurred simultaneously.
In none of the verses do I see any "foreground/background" distinction.

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.

The first QATAL is chosen because the Fountain gate is stressed. The
YIQTOL and the two following WEYIQTOLS alle express simultaneous action,
and give some more details about the action. "A close-up view" of the
details may be the reason for the choice of imperfective aspect in all
three instances. However, in v 13 is such a specification expressed by a
QATAL and a WAYYIQTOL, so there may perhaps be stylistic reasons also in v
15.

In many instances do the choice of aspect imply important semantic nuances.
In other cases, such as in these verses, this does not seem to be the case.

QUESTION: Which of the verbs in the three verses are imperfective and which
are perfective in your view? If you think this is "such a curious passage"
I have several more being equally "strange".


Regards
Rolf


Rolf Furuli
Lecturer in Semitic languages
University of Oslo










Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page