Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

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
>
>
>
>