b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum
List archive
- From: yochanan bitan <ButhFam AT compuserve.com>
- To: b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
- Subject: Re: Perfectivity of wayyiqtols
- Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 03:52:27 -0400
matthew anstey wrote:
>Assuming however that they are imperfective, how would the reader work
this
>out? How would they process the first verb ad perfective, and then
>subsequently re-process it as imperfective against the total context? Is
>this some sort of aspect-neutralisation?
you could call this aspect neutralisation, though that begs a question.
actually, i don't believe the hebrew vayyiqtol or qatal are absolutely
perfective, or that people are thinking primarily aspectually in Biblical
Hebrew. BHebrew doesn't process a series of events, by strictly ignoring
time and asking only is this whole or partial, complete or in-process?
(e.g., most futures are 'wholes'. that is not why they get prefix-tensed.).
it is a time/aspect/mood composite. and time would appear to be the first
processing filter, or more functionally, the first, most consistent match
for the user. 96-98%, depending on who's counting. the user must match his
form repertoire (2.5) with the encoded world where anything can happen and
functionally communicate. it is only the analyst who comes after the fact
that wants a name for the binary TAM composite. most people initially love
"aspect" because that signals something other than pure tense. until they
learn what aspect really is, and then they realize more is going on thn
just marking pure aspect. you could call this relative fusion, the definite
TAM vs. the indefinite TAM. vayya`avru is the definite TAM. and the past
gives a perfectly good reading from the start, so the user doen't need to
stop and analyze further. (and you should see that the name
'definite/indefinite' doesn't solve the problem, it just puts a label on it
nd sticks it on a shelf.)
braxot
randall buth
-
Re: Perfectivity of wayyiqtols,
Matthew Anstey, 10/18/1999
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- Re: Perfectivity of wayyiqtols, Dave Washburn, 10/18/1999
- RE: Perfectivity of wayyiqtols, Matthew Anstey, 10/19/1999
- Re[2]: Perfectivity of wayyiqtols, peter_kirk, 10/19/1999
- RE: Perfectivity of wayyiqtols, Dave Washburn, 10/19/1999
- Re: Perfectivity of wayyiqtols, yochanan bitan, 10/20/1999
- Re: Perfectivity of wayyiqtols, Paul Zellmer, 10/20/1999
- Re: Perfectivity of wayyiqtols, Dave Washburn, 10/20/1999
- Re: Re[2]: Perfectivity of wayyiqtols, Dave Washburn, 10/20/1999
-
RE: perfectivity of wayyiqtols,
Matthew Anstey, 10/20/1999
- RE: perfectivity of wayyiqtols, Dave Washburn, 10/21/1999
- Re[4]: Perfectivity of wayyiqtols, peter_kirk, 10/20/1999
- Re: Re[4]: Perfectivity of wayyiqtols, Dave Washburn, 10/22/1999
- Re: Perfectivity of wayyiqtols, dan-ake mattsson, 10/23/1999
- RE: perfectivity of wayyiqtols, Matthew Anstey, 10/23/1999
- Re[6]: Perfectivity of wayyiqtols, peter_kirk, 10/26/1999
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.