Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Bryan Rocine" <brocine AT earthlink.net>]

hi Rolf,
you wrote:
> Bryan Rocine wrote:
<snip>

> >
> >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.

<snip>

Thus the
> perfective aspect indicates that the event was finished at
reference time
> while the imperfective aspect shows that it was not
finished.

o.k., these are good definitions of perfective and
imperfective.  I hope Peter is pleased with the plain talk.
Nevertheless, I will now go on using perfective and
imperfective as a shorthand while talking about these
matters.

And you have made a good point, Rolf about the inadequacy of
my English sentence.  I may not have written the unambiguous
Eng;lish sentence that I wanted to write.  Substitute *when*
for *while*:

  When John was eating I washed all the other dishes.

Is the washing perfective now according to Broman Olsen?  At
least closer?  I think it is an interesting change,
illustrating how the verb's arguement can alter the
aspectual make-up of the clause.  One last try:

   When John was eating, I washed a dish and put it in the
rack to dry

My point?  I don't think the English simple past has an
uncancellable aspectual value.

<snip>

>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.

First, remember that I am only claiming that wayyiqtol, not
qatal, is inherently perfective.  Second, remember that in
spite of a very large statistical weight to the claim, I am
not entirely sure of it.  (I have noticed a small percentage
of counter-examples that I cannot explain very well such as
when someone goes to a place but never gets there!)  And now
for my bold claim:  Although the wayyiqtol does *not always*
present events that are terminated at the reference time, it
*is* inherently perfective.  There is one particular case
that I *must* explain before I can make such a claim: the
wayyiqtol that appears in an imperfective context, i.e.
within a series with clauses that are clearly imperfective.
We see in some other languages which grammaticize aspect
that an inherently perfective form can be used in
imperfective contexts to lend consecutivity to the
discourse.  The perfectivity of the form is not cancelled!
Rather it is adapted to the context so that the perfectivity
is used to express consecutivity.  This is exactly what
wayyiqtol does in imperfective contexts.  In fact, the
manner in which wayyiqtol lends consecutivity to
imperfective contexts, something quite common in proverbs
and poetry, confirms rather than erodes the thesis that it
is inherently perfective.  We have discussed the description
of the virtuous woman in Pro 31 in this regard in the past.

Re qatal:  As I said, I am not saying thsat it is
perfective.  I like Hatav's description of it as a *perfect*
as well as Eskhult's.  I say it tells the state the subject
is in at the reference time (RT).  So the unseen entrance
into the state happens before the RT.  Because the form
implies a past event it seems like a past tense, and this
implication of past is probably why it became a past tense.
I would not call it perfective because it is not about an
event at the RT, but about a state that has been obtained
*by* the RT.  I think an exception to this is in direct
speech.  Direct speech narratives may open with a qatal
which is essentially a past tense.  Since most poetry falls
under the rubric of direct speech, the "past tense" qatal
can be seen there, too, although I don't think it dominates.

Re: *verbal* participle:  always imperfective, never
terminated at the reference time.

So, Rolf, you have passed on to us Broman Olsen's clear
defintion of perfectivity.  How can you still maintain that
the well over ninety percent of wayyiqtols which are clearly
perfective are actually imperfective?

Shalom,
Bryan



B. M. Rocine
Associate Pastor
Living Word Church
6101 Court St. Rd.
Syracuse, NY 13206

(office) 315.437.6744
(home) 315.479.8267