Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Bryan,

I wrote:
>Thus the
>> perfective aspect indicates that the event was finished at
>reference time
>> while the imperfective aspect shows that it was not
>finished.
>
You wrote:
>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*:
>
>  (1) 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:
>
>   (2) 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.

You are right. English simple past  does not have an uncancellable
aspectual value. In fact, it has no inherrent aspectual value at all,
because it is only past tense. Neither of your examples above (which I have
numbered (1) and (2) fulfill Broman Olsen's requirement for being
perfective. What seems to be perfectivity is just telicity ("wash a dish"
is telic while "whash dishes" is not). Broman Olsen says (p 183): "The
simple past form only asserts past tense, since it may have both
imperfective and perfective interpretations."  An example: "When John was
eating, I washed the dishes." Our knowledge of the world tells us that
there is a finite number of dishes in a house, and only a few of them need
to be washed at a time.  Therefore the clause can be interpreted as
including the end (being telic). However, we may aslo say: "When John was
eating, I washed the dishes and after John finished eating I still
continued to wash the dishes." Here "dishes" can be viewed as generic, and
the end is not reached at reference time.  Broman Olsen lists just three
perfective forms: Past perfect ( John had washed dishes.), Present perfect
(John has washed dishes.), and Future perfect (John will have washed
dishes.)


>
><snip>
I wrote:
>>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.
>
You wrote:
>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?
>
The clear point is that with English verbs which are marked for
perfectivity (they have it as a semantic property), the end of the event is
ALLWAYS reached at RT, and with verbs marked for imperfectivity, the end is
NEVER  reached at RT. Therefore, the reporter has no choice. When either of
the aspects is chosen, the same objective characteristic of the event is
signalled (the end is reached or not reached.)

This means that Hebrew aspects as you, Alviero, and myself define them are
completely different from the English ones, and therefore the question is
appropriate: What is the relationship between Hebrew aspects and time? Does
the perfective aspect uniformely signal that the end was reached at RT and
the imperfective aspect uniformely signal that it was not reached? And if
not, what relation has the end of an event to each aspect? With all respect
to the sincerity and list-memebers knowledge of Hebrew, it does not seem
that any member has pondered over these questions (If I am wrong, please
tell me). And this is the very heart of aspect theory!

A fine method to evaluate the aspect of the WAYYIQTOLs, is to look at all
the examples in the corpus to find those where we by help of the context
definitely can know where reference time intersects event time. The
prediction is that WAYYIQTOLs behave like the YIQTOLs  in this respect,
while WEQATALs behave as the QATALS in this respect. The vidence I have
gathered so far points to the imperfectivity of the WAYYIQTOLs.


Regards
Rolf


Rolf Furuli
Lecturer in Semitic languages
University of Oslo