Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Hi Rolf, you wrote:

<noted and snipped>

> BTW, how many sources that have studied the primary data
regarding the
> short forms and concluding that they are preterits do you
know?

The preterit value of the short forms is asserted, not
proven, as far as I
know.  I think you are correct to question traditional
labels and to call for linguistic re-analysis from the
ground up.

Notice once again that I prefer the
label perfective to preterit.  Interestingly, perhaps
surprisingly, there can be enough
flexibility in a perfective form to be used for past,
present modal, or future situations.  Clearly, it is most
compatible with single, past, over-and-done-with
situations, sequential situations.  I would be referring
here to the BH wayyiqtol.
I have myself only done a dedicated study of BH while having
to accept (suspiciously  ;-)   ) the statements of the
textbooks on
cognate languages.

>
<noted and snipped>

> I view this method as based on sound linguistic
principles, and at the same
> I, by using it, am able to draw conclusions that are
falsifyable. Do you
> agree with that?

Your methods are ambitious, and sometimes I can't quite
follow you.  I think it is noble to pursue a method that has
falsifiable conclusions.  Tense-only theories have been
falsified to my satisfaction.  Ditto for aspect-only
theories.  So I have
turned to my own theory, which is admitedly the result of
induction.

Falsification of any theory about the meanings of verbs in a
language is a tedious, but in a way, rather easy task for a
linguist when we have a population of native speakers to
interview.  We merely imagine a strategic and representative
battery of test sentences and have the native speaker (the
only true experts!) mark them *yes* and *no*
based on the native's inate understanding of the
acceptablity of the language in the test sentences.   We
have, however, in the Biblical corpus *only acceptable
language*, and we have no native speakers!  So when we find
a
model that seems to account for all the forms in the extant
corpus
(as your model and mine do), how can the model be
falsifiable?  I admit that my model is suseptible to the
charges of reductionistic and unfalsifiable.  I am prepared
to live with that.  I am rooted firmly and safely on the
ground of speculation!  ;-)


> There is no universal definition of aspect (See L:J:
Brinton,1988, "The
> Development of English Aspectual Systems", pp 4-20), but a
common
> denominator can be found. The following general
characteristics are found
> in the literature:
>
> (1) Aspect is connected with form, not with function
(though a few dispute
> this).
> (2) The aspects represent the subjective viewpoint of the
reporter, how
> s/he wants to describe different events. However,
depending on the
> particular language in question, there are several
truth-cinditional
> restraints that must be taken into consideration when the
aspect is chosen.
> (3) The two aspects represent different ways to describe
or view the event
> time (which is non-deictic).
> (4) The imperfective aspect is a viewpoint where a small
part of the event,
> after the beginning and before the end, is focused upon.
The perfective
> aspect is a viewpoint where the whole event, beginning and
end included, is
> focused upon.

Stop.  I suspect you are leaning too heavily on #4 re
imperfective, especially the "small part" part.  At best, I
think the idea is at the fringes of orthodox understanding
of
aspect.  It seems to me like you are setting yourself up for
a misleading re-interpretation of
the essential quality of aspect, stated here:  the
perfective view
makes the end of the situation visible, thus enabling the
forward movement of story time, while the imperfective view
leaves the termination of the situation unseen, so that the
imperfective view may provide a frame of time into which
story time may be laid.  Aspect is all about story time.

>
> All characteristics above can be applied to the English
aspects, and (3)
> can be further specified by saying that the perfective
aspect (English
> perfect tense) is a coda view, thus it shows objectively
that the event is
> terminated. The imperfective aspect (present participle)
is a nucleus view,
> thus it shows that the event was not terminated.

Does imperfective show that the situation was not terminated
or does it merely leave the termination of the situation out
of view?  I think the latter.

>
> The semantic properties of the English aspects are the
coda view
> (terminated) and the nucleus view (not terminated). My
first task,then, is
> to see whether this semantic distinction is found in
Hebrew (I have already
> found that all forms can express past, present, and future
time and
> indicative and subjunctive  moods, so at this point,the
research is only
> directed towards the A of the TAM).
> I started with the simplest forms YIQTOL and QATAL, and
there is
> overwheling evidence that both forms express both
terminated and
> non-terminated events (the same is true for Aramaic, which
I earlier have
> shown). Conclusion: The Hebrew aspects (represented by
YIQTOL  and QATAL)
> do not have the same semantic properties (coda view -
nucleus view) as the
> English aspects. Thus they do not represent a uniform
depiction of event
> time.

Stop.  You should right now drop the *labels* perfective and
imperfective in favor of Harry and Dick.  ;-)   (TAM is
already
taken!  ;-)   ).  Let's say you have proven that the forms
do not
grammaticize aspect in and of itself because you have shown
that either form can refer to situations in which the
terminal point is and is not in view.  Then why create
confusion
with strictly aspectual labels such as perf. and
imperf.?  I have been trying on and off for three or four
years to influence you to change your labeling only.  Yet
let me now voice another issue.  I can't
understand your assertion re the meaning of the prefixed
forms.  "...view from a short distance with the details
visible"?  Sounds *very* out ofthe mainstream to me,
especially the "with the
details visible" part.  :-(   What details are you referring
to?  That's talk about aspect?  It doesn't seem so because,
at least as I surmise, you are not talking about time any
more.  I can't see how BH suffixed or prefixed forms do ands
do not make visible "details."

>
> This conclusion, however, does not necessarily mean that
(1), (2), (3), and
> (4) above have to be rejected, and that QATAL should now
be viewed as Dick
> and YIQTOL as Harry, to use your words. To the contrary,
QATAL  and YIQTOL
> do have the general characteristics of the perfective and
imperfective
> aspect respectively. So we need not introduce any
allegorical or spirital
> dimensions that would change the nature of QATAL and
YIQTOL from being
> aspects to being Dick and Harry. The normal linguistic
procedure when one
> property of a form must be rejected, is to try to find the
most narrow
> generalization that can account for all the
characteristics of that form,
> and this is exactly what I have done with the definition:
>
> THE IMPERFECTIVE ASPECT (PREFIX FORMS) REPRESENTS A
CLOSE-UP VIEW OF A
> SITUATION FROM A SHORT DISTANCE WITH THE DETAILS VISIBLE.
THE PERFECTIVE
> ASPECT (SUFFUX FORMS) REPRESENTS A BROADER VIEW FROM SOME
DISTANCE WHERE
> THE DETAILS ARE NOT VISIBLE.
>
> This definition is an aspect definition not a Dick- or
Harry-definition.
> The basic difference between this definition and most
other definitions (if
> such are found; text-books tend not to give definitions or
to give
> confusing definitions) is that the termination of an event
is not given any
> importance. However, my definition is compatible with the
fact that most
> imperfective forms in Hebrew focus on a part of the event
*before* the end
> and most perfective forms include the end.

Including, in your view, wayyiqtol?  I don't buy it.

>But it also
>accounts for the
> situations where imperfective forms include the ends and
perfective forms
> does not include it.

I am not convinced that your labels are wise, and I am
increasingly convinced you are hurting yourself efforts with
them.  You have
proven that the essential quality of aspect, whether the end
of a situation is in view, is not grammaticized in BH.  So
drop the labels perfective and imperfective for the forms,
unless, of course, you want to claim that wayyiqtol is
perfective and that the verbal participle is imperfective as
I usually do.  ;-)

>Are you not saying that a YIQTOL has no intrinsic
meaning, but can
> represent *the writer's subjective viewpoint* (roughly
comparable to the
> imperfective aspect) in one context and *the writer's
opposite subjective
> viewpoint" (roughly comparable to the perfective aspect)
in another
> context? If this is your opinion, I cannot see how your
model can be tested.

Prefixed forms most definitely have a meaning.  "Aorist" is
not such a bad name for the prefixed forms.  Wayyiqtol is
"aorist perfective."

>
> To put it differently, I would ask:
> (a) Are there two different *subjective viewpoints*, and
if so, are they
> privative (having each a positive value) or equipollent
(being perfect
> opposites)?

each has a value as I named in a previous post in this
thread.  The values are not opposites but they represent a
basic polarity of expression that I find in the Semitic
languages, that between expressing a situation as a state
achieved (whether past, present or future) and as a
happening (again, whether past, present or future).  It is
most possible to express any situation, whether past,
present or future, whether the terminal point of the
situation is in view or not, as either a state achieved or a
happening.  Re "expressing a situation as a state achieved":
I am not talking about stative roots or passive stems.
Those are seperate issues however much they do interact with
the verb forms and their arguements.  I also refer to the
qatal form as expressing an attribution, that is, an
attribute of the subject, almost adjectivally.

> (b) On which basis is your model built, and on which basis
can we know
> which subjective viewpoint a form represents?

I have noticed a certain degree of interchangeability
between the forms.  Linguistic convention *constricts* the
choice of forms, but another form is often, quite
surprisingly to us perhaps, possible.  (You may want to see
my Reading 5).
At this point I am left to conclude as you do that a
writer's choice of forms is actually *controlled* by nothing
more than the view he desires to present of a situation.  (I
am making a careful distinction here between "constrict" and
"control."  Then I must determine, based on the distribution
of the forms and comparative Semitics, the basic meaning of
the forms.  I expect my hypothesis about the meaning of the
forms to be confirmed by their
functions in a discourse analytical approach.  Hint:
determining the meaning of the forms is best begun with the
(we)qatal.

> (c) What is the relation between your *subjective
viewpoints* and clauses
> where the verb alone or together with its arguments
(subject/object) is
> telic.

I think the wayyiqtol is probably perfective. The yiqtol is
often (but hardly always) imperfective.  Nevertheless, like
you, I view all prefixed forms as sharing a meaning.  I just
consider the meaning of the prefixed forms to be
other-than-aspectual-only, other-than-tense-only.

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