Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] 998 non-past wyyqtl's

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
  • To: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] 998 non-past wyyqtl's
  • Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 18:06:51 +0000

On 27/11/2004 17:01, Rolf Furuli wrote:

...
I am very sceptical to Russian examples used to illuminate classical Hebrew, because what is called the imperfective and perfective aspects in Russian are more like Aktionsart than aspects. For example, "habituality" is not an aspectual quality in my definition of Hebrew aspects, but is a function of aspect + Aktionsart +possibly context. Peter Kirk may have more to say about this, because he knows both Russian and Hebrew.

Rolf, since you ask me to comment:

First I will say that there are points of similarity between Russian aspect and the Hebrew distinction between on the one hand QATAL and WAYYIQTOL (short form where there is a distinction possible), and on the other hand YIQTOL (long form without WAY-) WEQATAL. (Rolf, I don't expect you to agree.) But the similarity is certainly not perfect e.g. it seems to me that Hebrew YIQTOL covers habitual and iterative past and present and any future, whereas in Russian future which is not habitual or iterative is perfective. So I agree with you that the factor distinguishing between Hebrew verb forms is not the same as Russian aspect.

But when you say

what is called the imperfective and perfective aspects in Russian are more like Aktionsart than aspects

I am forced to differ. For linguists, the canonical definition of "aspect" is based on Russian, and the word "aspect" is itself a translation of the Russian grammatical term "vid". If you have discovered a linguistic feature X which is so different from Russian aspect that you are forced to say that "aspects in Russian are more like Aktionsart than X", the implication is that X is not aspect but something different. Don't play down your discovery by trying to redefine the term "aspect" to mean your X. So you need a new term for X. Perhaps you should call it "the Furuli factor" or something like that. :-) But it is clearly something different from aspect.


--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page