Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Aspect

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Eduard C Hanganu" <eddhanganu AT hotmail.com>
  • To: furuli AT online.no
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Aspect
  • Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 08:30:41 -0500



Dear Mr. Furuli:

Thanks for your answer. By the way, the definition of aspect was from R.L.Trask, and is indeed basic. Your explanation on Aktionsart and the *procedural trait* of verbs was very interesting. How can I learn more about these issues? What references have you used for personal research?

But to return to the verb NITZDAK my interest was related to the kind of action described. You mentioned that it had a perfective aspect. Does this mean that the action is nondurative, that is an event and not a progression? Actually, how does a Hebrew verb reflect a progression, or the progressive (continuous) aspect of the English language? I notice that the translators of the NRSV
( New Revised Standard Version) translate some of the original Hebrew verbs in the progressive.
( Sorry, I don't have an example right now of such a text). Is such a translation right or legitimate?

Essentially, what I wanted to know was if NITZDAK described an event or a progression, Can this aspectual characteristic of the verb be deduced from its morphology?

Regards,

Eduard



From: furuli AT online.no
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Aspect
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 16:28:29 +0200

Dear Eduard,




Dear Mr. Furuli:


In his 'Student's Dictionary of Language and Linguistics' defines aspect as 'a grammatical category which deals with distinctions in the wayin which an action or a situation is regarded as being distributed in time'. He also mentions that 'traditional grammar often confused aspect with tense, but the two are quite distinct'(p 21).

This definition i general and therefore gives little information, but I see no problems with its words.


I have been wondering recently if Hebrew has indeed 'aspect' in the classical sense. Are 'perfect' and 'imperfect' indeed the two 'aspects' of the Hebrew language? And how are they related to the 'telic/atelic' and 'bound/unbound' notions?

I define Aktionsart as the kind of action that is signalled by the lexical meaning of the verb. Durativity, dynamicity, telicity, and punctiliarity are typical Aktionsart terms. The concept stativity must be put in the same slot, but it cannot be said to be an Aktionsart because it does not signal any action. I define the concepts iterative, habitual; and the Vendlerian characteristics such as achievements, accomplishments and activities, not as Aktionsart (which is an objective characteristic caused by a single factor), but as *procedural traits*, because they are functions of several factors. The interplay of aspect, tense, Aktionsart; and the difineteness/indefiniteness of the verbal arguments, adverbials etc. contribute to signalling different procedural traits. I will generally avoid boundedness/unboundedness in connection with Hebrew verbs, because any Hebrew verb form, finite and infinite can (with a few exceptions) express any bounded or unbounded event, past, present and future. Whereas in English the perfective aspect can only portray bounded events and the imperfective aspect can only portray unbounded events. (Exceptions can occur in any language, but to be accepted they must be linguistically explained.)


One of the verbs that have preocupied me in this sense is the NITZDAK of Daniel 8:14 ( the niphal waw consec perfect 3rd person masculine singular of the verb TZADEIK). NITZDAK appears to have an 'imperfect' aspect. Does this mean that the verb describes an 'open' event with beginning but no end? The verb phrase 'the sanctuary shall be vindicated' seems to suggest a telic, bound event with a relatively short duration indicated by the noun phrase 'the sanctuary.' How would you personally describe the action of the verb NITZDAK in the context of Daniel chapter eight, and especially in reference to the discourse fragment of Daniel 8:9-14?

The verb you mention in Dan 8:14 I analyze as a QATAL with a prefixed conjunction, which means that it has the perfective aspect. One possible translation is: "and the holy (place) will be brought into its right condition". Because the verb may signify a state, the situation can be compared with all the situations in Kings when someone "bacame king" (was brought into the state of being king). So what is signified by the noun QD$ was brought into the state of being right (a thing can hardly become righteous).


Best regards
Rolf


Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo


I am just beginning to find my way through these topics, so forgive me if I sound imprecise or confused. I would greatly appreciate your help in this matter.

Regards,

Eduard C. Hanganu





From: furuli AT online.no
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Aspect
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 08:06:31 +0200


Dear List-members,

For those who want to come to grips with the term aspect, the sources
listed by Ken should be included. But there is one particular fine
work that should be included as well, namely, Olsen, Mari Broman
(1997). "A Semantic and Pragmatic model of Lexical and Gramatical
Aspect". New York: Garland Publishing. Olsen defines tense a the
relationship between reference time and the deictic center and aspect
as the relationship between reference time and event time. On the
basis of these three parameters alone she is able to explain the
whole English verbal system without seeking recourse in the so-called
relative tenses. Please note that she points out that the perfective
aspect in English is only expressed by perfect and not by simple
past; regarding this both Comrie and Cook errs, in my view. The
strength of Olsen's system is that she uses a few fundamental
concepts systematically, but the weakness is that she, as most others
believe that aspect definitions are universal, so they can be applied
to any aspectual language.

In contrast with Ken I think that the basic obstacle for
understanding the verbal system of the Hebrew Bible is how aspect is
defined. There are even parts of standard definitions that in my
view are pure nonsense! For example, what is a "complete" event?
Is "complete" applied to the literal event or to the description of
it? And regardless of the answer, does the term "complete" make
sense at all? And what is "an event in progression" (taken from the
opposition "progressive/nonprogressive")? Are not all events, save
instantaneous ones, in progression? And if we substitute
"progression" with "durativity", (as in the misnomer "durative past"
for YIQTOLs with past reference) are not all events, save
semelfactive ones, durative? And is not "durative" an Aktionsart
term rather than an aspectual term?

Let us apply the term "complete" to real situations portrayed in the
Hebrew Bible. There are more than 2,000 QATALs and more than 2,000
YIQTOLs with present reference. How can we say that the QATALs are
"complete" and the YIQTOLs are events "in progression"? There are a
little less than 1,000 QATALs with future reference (less than 10 per
cent of these are future completed (future perfect), according to the
context). How are these forms with future reference "complete"? And
to use a past example: There are several QATALs of MLK in Kings with
the meaning "He began to reign" - the entrance into the state is made
visible. How are these events "complete"? And should not
"complete"+past reference be "completed"?

There is a methodologically simple way, though requiring much hard
work, to solve these problems, namely: Take all the Hebrew verbs, or
at least a few thousand of them, and follow Olsen's method, by
applying the parameters "reference time" (when possible), "event
time", and the "deictic center" to the verbs. The result will
probably be that you discard what standard grammars say about Hebrew
tense and aspect. It is quite ironic that most dissertations and
monographs on Hebrew verbs in the past fifty years basically are
studies of what other scholars have said about the Hebrew verbal
system, rather than a study of thousands of verbs of the verbal
system itself. We should not chew cud on the old definitions of
aspect which has come to us with a few revisions, through Reichenbach
and Comrie, as far as general linguistics is concerned, and through
S. R. Driver and Waltke-O'connor, as far as Hebrew is concerned.
It is time to reject the whole old system and do some qualitatively
new thinking.


Best regards

Rolf


Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo


_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 9 Dial-up Internet Access fights spam and pop-ups – now 3 months FREE! http://join.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200361ave/direct/01/





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page