Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Bryan Rocine wrote:
>
>perfective = a situation presented as a whole, including,
>most significantly, its end.  it most closely corresponds to
>your "complete" below.
>
>imperfective = a situation that does not have its end point
>in view.  it therefore can provide a background onto which
>the
>perfective situation is overlaid.
>
>So in the sentence, "While John was eating, I washed all the
>other dishes" the eating is imperfective and the washing is
>perfective.  The end of the eating is not visible, but the
>end of the washing is.
>
>BH exmple:  Gen 33:1 vayisa ya`aqob `eynav vayar vehineh
>esav ba vayaxats...  The wayyiqtols clauses are perfective
>and the
>participle is imperfective.
>
>>

>
>yup.  So what sayest thou, Rolf?  Is this a counter-example
>for you?  It doesn't strike me as awfully damaging to your
>thesis.  But it does strike me as damaging to your use of
>the word *aspect* or *imperfective* in your explanations.  I
>still haven't figured out why you don't dump the terminology
>of aspect from your explanations.  Why not just call the two
>forms *subjective viewpoints*, *broad focus*, and *narrow
>focus* and let them do what they want to time-wise and
>aspect-wise.  Just wondering: aren't you concerned that you
>will create misunderstanding by your use of the terminology
>of aspect for a rather idiosyncratic classification of verb
>forms?





Dear Bryan,

Reagrding aspect, Carl Bache, 1985, "Verbal Aspect", p 5 wrote: Since
aspect is probably one of the most controversial areas not only in
language-specific grammars but also in general linguistics, it is
impossible to refer to any single generally accepted definition. However,
most definitions in the literature have as their central theme  the
"Gesichtspunkt, unter dem ein Vorgang betrachtet wird" (Porzig,1927:52),
that is, 'the speaker/writer's view of the action or situation described.'
Since the verb is the central unit in expressions referring to actions/
situations, the category aspect is typically associated with verb forms."
Bache further shows that "time" is also a central factor in aspect
definitions; Comrie says that aspect describes "aspects are different ways
of viewing the internal temporal constituency of a situation".

Hebrew aspect, as I define it, is a viewpoint, and my definition of it also
includes its relation to time, therefore the definition qualifies as an
aspect definition. (Consider also Bache's words about the different
definitions). I am not afraid that those with a background in linguistics
should misunderstand my definition. True, it is a new definition, but it
was not invented as a result of a revelation, but rather as a result of
hard work inside a frame of modern linguistic principles, using linguistic
terminology.  I wonder how many on this list just have adopted traditional
cliches regarding the meaning of the aspects and how many have worked
systematically with the problem of the relationship between aspect,
reference time and event time?

The clearest work on English aspect I have ever read, is the book I have
mentioned several times: M. Broman Olsen, 1997, "A Semantic and Pragmatic
Model of Lexical and Grammatical Aspect".  She argues that the perfective
aspect in English is expressed by perfect and not by past tense (p 172-),
so your example above with "washed" will not meet her requirements for a
perfective/imperfective distinction.  Her model of English aspects, which
is very convincing, shows that reference time intersects event time at the
coda when the perfective aspect is used and that reference time intersects
event time at the nucleus when the imperfective aspect is used. Thus the
perfective aspect indicates that the event was finished at reference time
while the imperfective aspect shows that it was not finished.

Alviero wrote: "In the specific case of Neh. 3:14, 15, the fact that the
building was already finished at the time the book was written is
irrelevant because the writer is free of presenting things differently." I
have several times expressed the same thought, and I suppose Alviero would
agree if we substituted "the time the book was written" with "refernce
time", i.e. the time the author referred to. And here we have the crucial
point.  Do you claim that events in Hebrew expressed by the perfective
aspect *allways* are terminated and events expressed by the imperfective
aspect always are continuing at reference time?  If the answer is yes,
Hebrew aspect is similar to English aspect as far as time is concerned, if
the answer is no, Hebrew aspect is different from English aspect in this
respect. Yes, it may possibly mean that Hebrew aspect is not concerned with
time at all, as I claim.

Any study of aspect must have a point of reference, something that it can
be compared with. For those speaking English a comparison with the English
verbal system will be informative. So I look forward to your answer.




Regards
Rolf



Rolf Furuli
Lecturer in Semitic languages
University of Oslo