Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Hebrew Verbs Request (from Rodney Duke)

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] Hebrew Verbs Request (from Rodney Duke)
  • Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 18:05:49 +0200

Dear Ken,

In a short time I will travel to Berlin to make a collation of a few important cuneiform tablets, and because I am working very hard with drawings and transcriptions of these tablets, in order to prepare myself, I just give a short comment to your inquiry without examples.

Ken Penner wrote:

Rolf wrote:


2. Aspect in the traditional sense, with the opposition complete/ incomplete (or, complete/uncompleted), is not grammatical zed. However, aspect, with different definitions (made on the basis of the relationship between event time and reference time) is grammaticalized.

Could you provide these "different definitions" of aspect for the list? In
your view, what *is* the relationship between event time and reference time
grammaticalized by the verb forms?
Is it a relationship of precedence (a type of relative tense)?
Is it inclusion (the usual meaning of aspect)?
Is it overlap?
Is it phase (inceptive/nascent, final/completive, continuative, resumptive,
habitual)?
Does it involve iteration, stages, subintervals?

Ken Penner
McMaster/Hebrew

RF:

A good overview of different definitions of aspect is found in L. J. Brinton (1988) "The
Development of English Aspectual Systems Aspectualizers and Post-verbal Particles". A common
denominator in the different definitions is that aspect represents a viewpoint. The most
important question to ask when one starts a quest for aspect definitions is the following:
"Do the aspects *contribute* something new to the meaning of a clause, or do they only
*show* something which already is there?"


For example, when you add a finite verb to a nominal clause in a tense language, you add something new. The same is true when you add a modal or an interrogative particle. But what do the aspects add? In my model the aspects are strict viewpoints, which means that they are just peepholes through which events can be viewed from different angles and perspectives. This means that the aspects do not directly contribute anything new to lexicon, grammar, or syntax, but they are tools that the author can use to make particular sides of the verbal action visible.

This does not mean that the aspects are superfluous in classical Hebrew. MH GENOITO! Because the two aspects are semantically different, there are different expectations as to what will be seen when either aspect is used. And this is used by the writers to signal particular nuances. For example, when the imperfective aspect is used, we (or at least I) expect to see a small sequence of progressive action with details visible. If, the default interpretation of the Aktionsart of the verb is punctiliar, the combination of punctiliarity and the imperfective aspect, can signal at least three different situations, 1) iterative or habitual actions, 2) resultative actions, and 3) durative actions (i.e. the verb in this context is shown not to be punctiliar, and a small sequence in the middle of its ET is made visible), These situations are signaled by the interplay of the objective lexical meaning/Aktionsart of the verb and the subjective nature of the aspect, and not by one of these alone.

To answer your questions above I would say: Aspect as I define it has nothing to do with precedence or relative tense, with inclusion or overlap, with phases (inceptive/nascent, final/completive, continuative, resumptive, habitual), and it does not involve iteration, stages, or subintervals. The aspects have no such intrinsic characteristics, but they can make visible one of those characteristics that already is there.

Because all verbs can signal incomplete and completed actions, aspects with this opposition are not found in Hebrew. However, when we look at the raltionship between event time and reference time we find aspects with a different nature. In my view, reference time represents a conceptual intersection of event time, i. e., a small or greater area of event time is made visible for the audience. What is made visible has a particular quality (close-up, long distance perspective), and it has a particular angle in relation to our vantage point, and it has a particular breadth,

As regards the angle, the imperfective aspect in Hebrew can make visible an attempt do something (conative event), an event which includes the beginning and a small part of ET, progressive action in the middle of ET, an egressive event (immediately before the end, or it can signal a resultative situation (the end of an action and the resultant state is made visible). The perfective aspect can make visible the whole ET with beginning and end, a great part of ET which either includes beginning or end. But neither of the aspects can signal something alone, because they are just peepholes.

To sum up, my definition of aspect is based on the intersection of ET by RT, on the angle, the quality, and the breadth of this intersection.


Best regards

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo












Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page