Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Jonathan Robie wrote:
>
>Unfortunately, I don't know anything about Hebrew, but those using
>scientific methods to test the above hypothesis have come to three
>different conclusions for the Greek Aorist:
>
>1. The Aorist grammaticalizes inherent past time reference
>2. The Aorist grammaticalizes implied past time reference
>3. The Aorist grammaticalizes aspect only, and not past time reference
>
>I gather that there are also differences of opinion on the Hebrew tenses.
>The experts differ. So will participants on this list. The experts have
>studied different bodies of evidence. So have the participants on this list.
>
>>It is evident that the writer has not read Olsen's thesis...
>
>Then educate him! I don't think that people have to read everything you've
>read in order to be treated with respect. You're perfectly free to present
>material on the list that the participants have not already read.
>
>(Editorial note: I'm a big fan of Olsen. She has published her thesis as a
>book, and these kinds of books tend to stay in print for a limited time, so
>if you want a copy, you may want to buy it quickly. But it's about aspect
>in many languages, and none of the examples are for Hebrew.)
>

Dear Jonathan,

Thank you for your post. I agree that Broman Olsen's book is valuable. The
relationship she outlines between time/tense, and what she calls
"grammatical aspect" and "lexical aspect" is almost perfect, and given her
assumptions it is extremely difficult to counter her conclusions. This is
scholarship on the highest level! However, all her assumptions cannot be
applied to Hebrew, but her methodology is excellent.

For those hebraists working with tense and aspect, Broman Olsen has a very
clear description of aspect as non-deictic time, i.e. the two aspects view
the "event time" in different ways, and tense as a grammaticalization of
location in time, i.e. deictic time. It seems to me that her definition of
aspect cannot be applied to Hebrew aspect, but it is very important to
understand her description and her methodology when working with Hebrew
aspect.

On this background I will ask about your point 2. above. When I read Broman
Olsen's book the first time I did not accept her conclusion that aorist
does not code for past time/tense, but only represents the  perfective
aspect and is indifferent as to deictic time. After a careful study of her
method I fully accept this conclusion. I therefore do not understand what
you mean by the proposition that "The Aorist grammaticalizes past time
reference." Who claims that, and what does it mean? In Broman Olsen's world
there are two fundamental properties, that which is semantic and
uncancellable and that which is conversational pragmatic implicature and is
cancellable. In her view of aorist, in which I agree, the perfective aspect
is uncancellable but deictic time/tense is cancellable. So the aorist is
indifferent as to deictic time. Is this also your understanding?


Regards
Rolf


Rolf Furuli
Lecturer in Semitic languages
University of Oslo