Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Kimmo Huovila <kimmo.huovila AT helsinki.fi>]

Rolf Furuli wrote:

> I do not think I will be able to continue the discussion much longer
> because of lack of time, but see my comments on one important point below.

Thanks for an interesting thread. I hope to leave you with some food for
thought.

> >Rolf Furuli wrote:
> >
> >> The point of Broman Olsen is that verbs which are marked for durativity,
> >> such as  "sing" and "run" can only have a durative interpretation. In a
> >> context with such verbs we therefore know that durativity is not 
> >> pragmatic,
> >> i.e. it does not come from the context. To show that durativity is a
> >> semantic (uncancelable) property, it is enough to show that the 
> >> durativity
> >> of *some* verbs is uncancelable. and similarly with dynamicity (=change),
> >> and telicity. To speak of Hebrew, any verb which normally is viewed as
> >> static can also have a non-static interpretation, and every verb that is
> >> viewed as puncual can also have a non-punctual interpretation.
> >
> >How does she define durativity and punctuality? In particular, what
> >tests does she apply to see if a verb is durative? I assume that here
> >she does not use the familiar Vendlerian classification, since it is
> >hard to see what would it mean to cancel durativity in that case.
> >Vendler's test defines punctuality basically negatively: a verb cannot
> >be put in a certain frame. I assume that cancelable durativity would not
> >mean (as the view seems nonsensical to me) that a verb cannot be put in
> >a certain frame (to make it punctual) and yet be put in the same frame
> >(for it to be a durative verb to start with).
> >
> The reason why I use Broman Olsen's model, is that it is very simple, and
> it helps us find which parts of a language is uncancelable and which are
> not. In my mag. art. thesis of 1995 I used some of her principles without
> knowing her model, so we have been thinking along the same lines. I suggest
> that you read the book (If you know about reviews or comments on it, I
> would like to know).

Rodney Decker has some criticism of her view on Greek in his
dissertation (Temporal Deixis of the Greek Verb in the Gospel of Mark
with Reference to Verbal Aspect, Central Baptist Theological Seminary,
1998; I think it was/will be published this year in some series). I have
seen other references, too, but cannot remember them now. Try an
Internet search. I assume it will yield somethink interesting.

> 
> Both Broman Olsen and myself accept Vendler's scheme. I do not argue that
> all events take some time, at least a few nanno-seconds, so all events are
> durative. I accept that the "achievement" "She reached the top." is
> punctual. However, there is no equipollent relationship between durativity
> and punctuality, but rather a privative one. This means that a verb marked
> for durativity can only have a durative interpretation, while a verb
> unmarked for durativity can either have a durative or a punctual
> interpretation. Thus punctuality in this case is "conversational pragmatic
> implicature".
> 
> Broman Olsen argues that achievements can have a durative interpretation.
> Examples:
> 
> (1) For days the unit has noticed a new paint on the wall.

The punctuality is iterated (in an outer layer), which does not mean
that punctuality is lost (in a theory of aspectual nesting).

> (2) John was dying when the doctor arrived.

Dying is often an accomplishment (sounds funny, but I mean Vendlerian
categories :-), not necessarily punctual.

> (3) He's been dropping the shoe for a long time.
Same as for #1.

> (4) Ever since then I1ve been finding my way back.
(I1ve = I've?)

This looks like an example of a real durative use. Perhaps 'find one's
way
back' is a durative idiom, which is aspectually deviant from just plain
'find' (an explanation in the spirit of Construction Grammar).

> 
> The semantic nature of durativity and the  pragmatic nature for
> punctiliarity is extremely important for Hebrew. Let us use MC) ("find")

This I assume is punctual.
(I do not like the term punctiliar, since some authors seem to mean
punctual by it, some seem to mean perfective. Confusing.)

> (MWT) "die"
But this need not be punctual.

> YLD ("give birth"), PTX ("open") etc. as examples. If we could
> take for granted that these and similar verbs *were* punctual, we would
> have a fine tool to find the nature of Hebrew aspects.

True. Punctuals are important for the study of aspect.

> WAYYIQTOLs of such
> verbs would for instance be strong arguments in favor of the view that this
> form either represents past tense or the perfective aspect.

Or is aspectually neutral. But none of this would apply if there is an
iterative sense with the WAYYQTOL form.

> In connection
> with the mentioned mag.art. thesis I looked at all examples of these and
> about 50 other of the most common "punctual" verbs. My conclusion (in line
> whith what I later read in the work of Broman Olsen) was that no verb in
> Hebrew *is* punctual, but every verb can have a durative interpretation.

Could a theory of aspectual nesting perhaps change the conclusion?
I would change 'every' to 'some', (though without nesting this might
lead me into trouble).

> The basis for this was that these verbs are found as YIQTOLs and
> participles with past meaning. The grammar of Joüon/Muraoka (1991:368)
> solves this problem by stating: "Finally there are some yiqtols with no
> iterative or durative aspect, and thus having the value of qatal, which
> would be the expected form." The (wrong) premise here, is that punctuality
> is a semantic property, and this turns the situation upside down. The
> conjugation should not be interpreted in the light of the verb, but the
> verb in the light of the conjugation; the combination of verb (Aktionsart)
> and conjugation (aspect) is what help us reach a particular interpretation.

It is not uncommon to find examples where the only possible
interpretation of a punctual put in the imperfective aspect is
iterative. If this is the case, then the premise of Jouon/Muraoka stands
in these cases. It does not mean, however, that there are not any cases
where a verb may lose its punctuality (aspectual polysemy).

I have not studied the Hebrew verb enough to argue for this from Hebrew,
but some living languages may be easier to use here (with the usual
caveats). I assume English will work. I assume that 'find' is an English
verb that does not show aspectual polysemy (is always punctual, except
in special constructions like 'find one's way back'). Perhaps the
natives on the list will correct me, if I am wrong. We can see where
this assumption will take us if we assume that punctuality is
uncancelable.

(1) I am finding tomatoes.
Because 'find' is punctual, and the verbal form is progressive, the
event must be iterated in (1). Therefore I find one tomato after
another.

(2) I am finding a tomato.
In sentence (2) it is not quite as easy to find a natural
interpretation, but perhaps this could be paraphrased as 'I keep findind
a certain tomato over and over again'. However, there must be iteration
(if 'find' is punctual).

(3) *I am finding a tomato once. The theory predicts that this is
impossible, as iteration is excluded by 'once'. If punctuality could be
canceled, this sentence should be OK. This is where I feel my theory
makes better predictions than your theory as I have understood it so
far.

Would natives agree with the predictions my theory makes of these
sentences? If so, I think I have proved that punctuality is not always
cancelable. In those cases where it is 'cancelable', we are dealing with
aspectual polysemy (like Peter's sentence 'the cable was snapping for
two nanoseconds') or aspectual nesting (where it is not really canceled
at all). I leave it for you and the list to judge which theory makes
more accurate predictions about the data.

(If you are interested in a more thorough exposition of aspectual
nesting, see my thesis.)

Kimmo