Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Use and Misuse of Waw in Verb Tenses

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Use and Misuse of Waw in Verb Tenses
  • Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:36:04 +0200

Dear Ken,

I give the following definition of *communication*: "To communicate implies from a meaning potential to make a part visible for the audience and to keep the rest invisible." This is seen in example 1) and 2) below.

1) Ann was singing in the bathroom.

2) Ann has sung in the bathroom.

We know that a singing event has a beginning and an end (this is the potential). In 1) a small part of progressive action is made visible (a small part of the potential) but neither the beginning nor the end; in 2) the end is made visible but neither the beginning nor progression. The English imperfective aspect is expressed by 1) (the participle) and the perfective aspect by 2) (the perfect).

If we translate this into linguistic terminology, we will say that aspect is the function of event time (ET) and reference time (RT). In other words, the differences between the aspects relates to how and where RT intersects ET. ET is the time of the event from beginning to end, and RT is the area of ET that we make visible, i.e., that we intersect when we utter a sentence. (It is the part of ET we see if we follow our pointing finger, so to speak.)

When I used the words "slightly different," that was a too modest expression, because English and Hebrew aspects are similar in 50 percent of their characteristics and different in 50 percent. And in the most important area the aspects are different.

I define the similarities between English and Hebrew aspects this way:
"The imperfective aspect is a close-up view of a small section of the event where the progressive action is made visible. The perfective aspect is a view, as if from some distance, of a great part of, or of the whole the event, where the progressive action is not made visible."

As to differences I have the following remarks:

In English, each aspect has just one option for the intersection of RT by ET: when the imperfective aspect is used, RT intersects ET at the nucelus (only a small area in the middle is made visible), and when the perfective aspect is used, RT intersects ET at the coda (only the end is made visible). In Hebrew there are several options for both aspects, both regarding the place that RT intersects ET and regarding the breadth of the intersection.

This means that in English the end is always visible when the perfective aspect is used (the event is completed), and the end is never visible when the imperfective aspect is used (the event is incomplete). In Hebrew both aspects can include the end and can be bounded, and this means that the definition "incomplete/complete(d) must be rejected. In my analysis of Hebrew aspects the perfective aspect includes the end in most instances (more than 50 percent), and the imperfective does not include the end in most instances. But in no instance does the perfective or the imperfective aspect *make the end of an action visible*. This means, for example, that when the end is made visible for the audience in each action expressed by WAYYIQTOLs in consecution, other factors than the aspect are used to make these ends visible.

The rule in Semitic studies is to use the aspect definition of B. Comrie, and this has lead many competent scholars astray, simply because this definition is the "English definition," which does not fit the Hebrew aspects.


Best regards

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo





Ken Penner wrote:

Dear Rolf,

You wrote:


6) THE MAIN CONCLUSION: YIQTOL, WAYYIQTOL, and WEYIQTOL represent the imperfective aspect (defined slightly differently compared with its English counterpart), and QATAL and WEQATAL represent the perfective aspect.


I tried to find your (slightly different) definition of the imperfective
aspect in the most recent work of yours I have, your paper entitled, "The
verbal system of classical Hebrew, an attempt to distinguish between
pragmatic and semantic factors," dated 6.14.04. If I missed it somehow,
could you point me to the page reference? If it is not defined in the paper,
could you offer your definition here?

Thanks,
Ken Penner, M.C.S. (Biblical Languages, Greek Focus), M.A. (Hebrew Poetry)
Ph.D. (cand.), McMaster University: Qumran Hebrew Tense, Aspect and Mood.
pennerkm AT mcmaster.ca
Flash! Pro vocabulary software: http://s91279732.onlinehome.us/flash or
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flash_pro/join








Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page