Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Dave Washburn" <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

Hi Matt,
> Gday Dave,
> 
> [Dave]
> >> >I don't think aspect is in view.  Aspect in Hebrew depends on
> >> >context and the meanings of the verbs used.
> >>
> [Matthew]
> >> Which sort of "aspect" are you talking about?
> >
> [Dave]
> >???  You were the one who asked "what are they aspectually?"
> >I'm not sure what it is you're fishing for.
> 
> [Matthew]
> 
> I wasn't intending any fishing and I should have explained my self clearer.
> You mention below that you equate Aktionsart and aspect. I differentiate (or
> better, the model (Dik's FG) I'm using differentiates) 4 levels of aspect.

OK, this is making more sense to my muddled brain now...

[snip - gotta study this stuff some more]
 
> [Matthew]
> >
> >"Context and meaning of the
> >> verbs used" sounds like Aktionsart. I am talking about Perfectivity, an
> >> independent but related grammatical category. If wayyiqtol grammaticises
> >> perfectivity, the example above needs more explanation as it relates two
> >> situations that (it is highly reasonable to assume) occur *within* the
> >> temporal development of the first situation (the battle).
> >
> [Dave]
> >I'm not saying wayyiqtol grammaticises perfectivity.
> 
> [Matthew]
> I didn't mean to imply that you did. I only meant, "If a person thinks
> wayyiqtol grammaticises perfectivity ,etc.."

OK, sorry I misunderstood.

> [Dave]
> I'm saying it doesn't grammaticise any aspect, whether perfectivity,
> >imperfectivity, or whatever.  All those things are contained within
> >the semantics of the words used.
> 
> [Matthew]
> Because I distinguish Aspect from Aktionsart I would say that perfectivity
> is not contained within the semantics of any word in any language.

Can you develop this a little more for me?

> [Matthew]
> >
> >> >and If so, how would the
> >> >> reader know not to link these sequentially, or to see them as
> >perfective.
> >> >
> >> >The reader would know not to link these sequentially because a
> >> >native speaker would have known that the wayyiqtol is not
> >> >sequential.
> >>
> >> Do you follow Comrie then in taking sequentiality as implicature? Hatav
> >> argues that sequentiality is grammaticised in Hebrew in the
> >wayyiqtol form,
> >> but examples like the above also present problems for this view.
> >
> [Dave]
> >I haven't read Comrie, but I take sequentiality as being a function of
> >context, not of verb form.  Yes, I part company with Hatav on this
> >point.
> 
> >
> >> The wayyiqtol is the simple clause: "They did battle.
> >> >Some people fell.  Uriah also died."  There are no syntactic
> >> >dependencies or other types of connection (temporal, causal,
> >> >result, apposition), each clause says what it says.  Doing battle is
> >> >an inherently non-perfective action, so the aspect is contained in
> >> >the meaning of the verb.
> >>
> [Matthew]
> >> Again I think that there is mismatch of terminology here. TO BATTLE is
> >> dynamic, non-telic, and controlled by the Agent, so its Aktionsart is
> >> Activity (or as you wrote Action). But perfectivity is
> >independent of this
> >> and not inherent. An imperfective view of a battle would be the soldier's
> >> view, a perfective view would be the historians. So Aktionsart
> >is contained
> >> in the verb (more strictly in the predicate, since TO DO BATTLE
> >FOR 3 DAYS
> >> is telic, and THE STORM BATTLED THE FOREST is not Agentive etc).
> >
> [Dave]
> >Define for me what you mean by aktionsart.  I'm operating under
> >the definition used in Greek, which is essentially the same as
> >"aspect."  I suspect you're using some terms in a different way
> >here.  What I'm saying is, perfectivity and imperfectivity are not
> >functions of the verb forms in Hebrew.  They are semantic factors of
> >the words involved.
> 
> [Matthew]
> Hopefully what I wrote above has now clarified the differences we have. My
> definitions are all borrowed. Aktionsart is from Dik: "the semantic nature
> of the whole predication as codetermined by the nature of the arguments and
> satellites with which the predicate combines." I am still working on
> choosing a satisfactory definition of Aspect (re Level 2 from above), but
> for the moment, the traditional will do, "the internal structure of the
> event itself." (LaPolla & Van Valin).

Wow!  It's a good thing I read fairly fluent scholarese.  I do wonder if 
these divisions and definitions aren't splitting the hairs a little too 
finely.

> [Dave]
> >> Some people were killed, Uriah among
> >> >them.  These are events that are inherently perfective (the act of
> >> >dying tends to have a definite terminus) so their aspect is
> >> >contained in the meanings of the verbs, as well.
> >>
> [Matthew]
> >> Perfective should be distinguished from telicity.
> >
> [Dave]
> >How so?  Define what you mean by "perfectivity" then.
> 
> [Matt]
> 
> By Perfectivity I mean that the situation is conceived of from the outside
> as a single complete event (like a spectator watching a marching band). By
> Imperfectivity I mean the view of one of the marches in the band. This
> metaphor is from Isacenko. 

It's a good one.  I'll probably "borrow" (read, pilfer!) it somewhere 
along the way.

By telicity I mean that the situation has an
> inherent terminal point. So the verb "rotate" is non-telic and the verb "dry
> out" is telic. There is therefore an inherent incompatibility between
> Imperfective verbs and telic events, and this often forces an iterative
> interpretation. (eg The wet pants dried out several times). This is common
> in BH. Likewise, a Perfective verb with a State often forces out an
> ingressive interpretation, as in "it began to rotate." This is also common
> in BH. W&O have many examples of both. This is what Peter was perhaps
> thinking when he translated, "The battle began and some men died and Uriah
> died".

OK, I'm clearer now.  Responding to what Peter wrote as well, I am 
aware that hillax"m is used sometimes with the sense "begin to do 
battle."  What I'm wondering is, what criteria do we use to decide 
when it means that and when it simply means "do battle."

> [Matthew]
> >You seem to have bleached the
> >> wayyiqtol of all semantic function.
> >
> [Dave]
> >Syntactic forms don't have "semantic function."  That one of the
> >fundamental principles of separation of syntax and semantics.  I
> >haven't bleached anything; it wasn't there to begin with.
> 
> [Matthew]
> It depends on what you mean by "separation," and this question takes into
> heavy theoretical disputes. I disagree with the Chomskian position, the
> "syntactocentric view of language". I hold to the
> "communication-and-cognition perspective" as Van Valin puts it. Syntax is
> not autonomous, nor is it the central aspect of language, rather is is the
> status/relationship between syntax, semantics, and pragmatics that is
> paramount. Syntactical categories (like predicate, terms) are semantically
> motivated.

Here's where we part company on the theoretical level.  I've gotten 
some exciting results by investigating Hebrew from an autonomous-
syntax POV.  Specifically, I've been able to find a unified field of 
usage for all 4 major verb forms (qatal, yiqtol, weqatal, wayyiqtol, 
though my investigation hasn't gone in that order); there really is a 
common thread that unites all the usages of all of them.  This, it 
seems to me, is what has been lacking in previous theories.  By 
mixing semantic categories in with syntactic form, we get things 
like "progressive perfect" (W&O), which strikes me as an 
oxymoron, or we get Andersen talking about sequentiality of the 
wayyiqtol while simultaneously saying it can begin a new section, 
and the like.  By separating syntax from semantics, I've been able 
to learn what it is that unites all the usages of the wayyiqtol 
(among others, but at the moment this is our topic so I'll try to 
stick to it), which seems to me to be a rather desirable goal.  I 
don't think syntax is primary, contra Chomsky, but I do see the 
need for a definite order to our investigation and a need to keep the 
categories separate for purposes of developing explanatory 
adequacy.  Semantics and pragmatics are on equal footing, 
linguistically speaking, but are separate issues from syntax and 
particularly from the question of what is coded in a syntactic form.

> [Matthew]
> >If it does not grammaticise aspect or
> >> tense, what does it do? What relationship does it have to the deictic
> >> centre? It seems like a *great* amount of implicature is being placed on
> >> wayyiqtol.
> >
> [Dave]
> >I could say "read my _Hebrew Studies_ paper," but basically what
> >it does is signal a syntactically independent thought, a simple
> >declarative sentence without syntactic connections to what
> >precedes.  "Syntactic connection" says nothing about semantic
> >connections, and in fact there are some semantic connections in
> >these clauses.  But they are functions of semantics, not syntax.
> >It's important to keep the two separate.  And I have no idea what
> >you mean by a great amount of implicature.
> 
> [Matthew]
> I have your paper, but I have so far only skimmed it. I'll look at it more
> closely later. By great amount of implicature I mean that, unless perhaps
> you formalise "semantic connections", the reader is expected, using Grice's
> norms of conversational implicature, to put together in Hebrew narrative the
> order of events, and the aspectual perspective on the events.

If I'm reading you right, that's pretty much what I'm saying.  The 
English sentences in the latter part of my paper illustrate this idea.  
We can't infer from the verb forms whether the events described are 
sequential or not (I didn't treat aspectual questions, but the same 
principle applies).  We have to determine from context and the 
meanings of the terms used what follows what.  This is similar 
(though not exact, since the English simple past is coded for past 
tense) to what I see in Hebrew.

> [Matthew]
> >> >> Why isn't the Hebrew, wayhi behillachem wayyapol ...?
> >> >
> [Dave]
> >> >Without asking the author we can't be sure, but I suspect that the
> >> >rapid-fire change of verbal subjects may have something to do with
> >> >it.  The soldiers came out of the city, engaged Joab in battle, some
> >> >Israelites fell, Uriah died also.  Bing, bang, boom.  Considering
> >> >what David told Joab to do to Uriah, this quick run-down of the
> >> >action following the siege tells us in very blunt language and
> >> >structure that David's plan to get rid of Uriah worked just the way
> >> >he planned it.
> >>
> [Matthew]
> >> But then if Joab is cancelling the converstional implicature by
> >using three
> >> wayyiqtols, doesn't that mean that on a normal interpretation three
> >> wayyiqtols would be perfective?
> >
> [Dave]
> >Where did you get anything about "cancelling the converstional
> >[sic] implicature" from what I wrote?  I'm afraid you're reading your
> >own discourse approach into my non-discourse approach.
> 
> [Matt]
> Sorry, I think I have confused myself by introducing implicature. I don't
> know enough about implicature in BH to know if it is being cancelled here or
> not, so I retract what I said. I would only note that my approach is not a
> discourse approach, but it is heavily semantic and pragmatic. But I do not
> start with a top-down analysis of the Hebrew as determined by the discourse
> genre, and neither do I divide foreground/background by verb forms. I am
> still undecided as to how and when to integrate discourse analysis into
> linguistic description, but unless we know how the individual forms work
> (both syntactically and semantically) then I think the top-down approach is
> weak. As Halliday says, a linguistic theory must come at the language from
> three angles, bottom-up, top-down, and sideways. Each perspective sees
> things the others miss.

I agree wholeheartedly about discourse, and obviously I 
misunderstood your approach and mislabeled it.  I stand corrected. 
I think discourse puts the cart before the horse, because it has to 
assume a certain level of knowledge about the forces of the verb 
forms in order to get to its next level, then it uses that next level to 
say "see?  I told you this is what the verb forms mean."  I have a 
problem with that.

> [Matthew]
> >> However, I have also thought of an alternative explanation that combines
> >> your observations about the context (Aktionsart) and
> >perfectivity. Concepts
> >> such as "battles", "meetings", "carnivals" etc tend to be seen as single
> >> "events" just like "explosions" "drinking tea" etc. Such complex
> >events have
> >> unusual syntactical properties, and I think this may solve our problems.
> >
> >No, they have unusual semantic properties, not syntactic
> >properties.
> 
> [Matthew]
> We are both talking universally, and we agree that they have particular
> semantic features. If in a particular language "complex event" verbs have
> unique syntactic behaviours (which I imagine someone could find an example
> of) then we could say, in some languages they have 'unusual' syntactic
> properties. For example, if in Hebrew, with a wayyiqtol they introduce an
> F-time rather than moving the R-time forward, then in BH wayyiqtol "complex
> event" verbs have syntactic properties, but a native speaker would be very
> helpful at this stage to verify this. (But if one doesn't view tense as a
> syntactical property, then it does not have on that view syntactic
> properties).
> 
> I hope this lengthy response clarifies my position. Thanks for the dialogue.

I havent' decided whether tense is a syntactic property or not.  In 
Hebrew, I don't think so.  In English, obviously it is.  Hence, I could 
suggest that it's a syntactic property that may or may not be 
coded in a particular language.  What do you think?

Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
"No good deed goes unpunished."