Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Rodney K. Duke" <dukerk AT appstate.edu>]

Hi Bryan,

I thought at first that my post of a couple of weeks ago, in which I
tried to explore whether or not Furuli's definition of aspect might work
with models of types of discourse,  was not going to generate any
discussion.  Although much of it was ignored, people did start to pick
up on the 'expository/decriptive' discourse passages for discussion.  I
have particularly appreciated the recent posts by you, Furuli, and
Niccacci.

Bryan Rocine recently stated:
<
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?
<

I have a couple of questions:
1) Are these views on aspect in the revised version of your textbook,
and if so where?

2) Regarding wayyiqtol: It is one matter to say that wayyiqtol is
'inherently perfective' and another matter to evaluate Furuli's thesis
regarding the yiqtol in wayyiqtol.  Might it not be that the yiqtol
focuses in on an action/time-segment of a larger event (as perceived in
the mind of the speaker) and that the wa+doubling adds a forward-moving
Reference Time that creates a sense of sequentiality and hence
perfectivity to most wayyiqtols?

3) Regarding qatal: I think I am beginning to see a difference between
what you and Furuli are suggesting--sorry I'm so slow.  At first it
seemed that your model of qatal as presenting a state-of-being of the
subject was not much different than saying that qatal presented an event
time-segment as a whole.  Now, if I understand correctly, Furuli is
claiming that the qatal presents an inclusive beginning-to-end event
time, and hence a perfective/complete state; whereas you see qatal as
making a statement about the state-of-being of a subject at a given
point in time which does not preclude that verbal action/event has yet
ended.  Am I getting it?

Thanks!

Rodney

--
Rodney K. Duke
Dept. of Phil. & Rel., Appalachian State Univ., Boone, NC 28608
(O) 828-262-3091, (FAX) 828-262-6619, dukerk AT appstate.edu