Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Rolf Furuli" <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Kevin, 

I have no knowledge of Polynesian languages.  At the University of Oslo there 
is a weekly seminar where we read Sumerian texts. Sumerian is a language 
family of itself with no other known relatives, although some traits may 
superficially seem to be similar with Basque or Tibetan. On the basis of your 
explanations it seems to me that there is a similarity with the seemingly 
chaotic situation of the Polynesian languages and that of Sumerian. For 
example, the new grammar of D. O. Edzard is very differend from the standard 
grammer of M-L. Thomsen. My experience from several years of study is that 
tense clearly is not grammaticalized in Sumerian.  And because the 
constructions of the verbs and their clauses are far more complex than for 
instance Hebrew or Akkadian, and the language is dead, I see now way to know 
whether aspect is grammaticalized in Sumerian.  But the grammars claim that 
aspect is there.

However, the Polynesian languages have living informants, and when these 
informants describe actions, they do so from a certain vantage point (the 
deictic center).  I am quite sure that my model can be applied to the 
Polenesian languages in a systematic, scientific way, even if the situation 
seems to be chaotic. One result that should be rather easily obtained is 
whether tense is grammaticalized.  When no verb form, or verb form together 
with particles, systematically refer to the past or to the future, we can 
draw the conclusion that tense is not grammaticalized.

To ascertain whether aspect is grammticalized or not may be harder.  But I 
use three different parameters in order to find and define aspect: the 
quality of focus, the angle of focus, and the breadth of focus of the 
intersection of event time by reference time.  I would guess that the 
application of these parameters to Polynesian languages would at least give 
some results, because it would be difficult to communicate in a language 
whose verbs can have any meaning.  Interestingly, I claim that imperfective 
and perfective verbs in classical Hebrew can signal both incomplete and 
completed situations (or bonded and unbounded situations, if this terminology 
is preferred). If this is true, it means that the two Hebrew aspects are 
similar in several respects. Nontheless, there are clear differences as well, 
and on the basis of these we can say that aspect is grammaticalized in 
Hebrew.  So, I suspect that the seemingly chaotic state of Polynesian verbs 
has some order after all, and that this can be demonstrated by an extensive 
analysis of thousands of verbs and work with informants.


Best regards

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Kevin Riley 
  To: Rolf Furuli 
  Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 3:43 AM
  Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Verb Inflection & Tense


          Comments below.

        -------Original Message-------

        From: Rolf Furuli
        Date: 10/03/05 17:07:20
        To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
        Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Verb Inflection & Tense

        Dear Kevin,

        Your points below regarding Polynesian and Austronesian are 
informative.
        But there is one problem, which I comment on below.

        <snip>
        >
        > Myself, I don't see major difference between completed aspect 
('having
        > studied') and the past tense. I cannot imagine how scholars could
        > establish
        > that Polynesians mean aspect, not tense in this case. For example,
        > consider
        > a hypothetical Polynesian who studied but did not graduate. If 
Tagalog has
        > aspects, that Polynesian should use imperfect in describing his 
studies.
        > My
        > guess, he would use perfect - which would therefore be not 
perfective
        > aspect, but past tense.

        I agree that scholars would have great problems in distinguishing 
between
        "completed aspect" and "past tense" in the situation you mention. But 
the
        reason for the problem is not that this distinction cannot be made in 
a
        living or a dead language, but rather that assumptions that need not 
be
        correct are used. Thus, the problem may be theoretical rather than
        practical.

        A colleague of mine who has spent many years among native speakers on
        islands in the Pacific ocean, and who is an expert of the native 
languages,
        said to me two weeks ago: "It is high time that we abandon the 
traditional
        definitions of aspects with their Slavic origin in the study of the 
Pacific
        languages. These definitions simply prevent progress in the language
        studies."

        It is very important to realize that while tense is a universal term, 
which
        means that its nature can be understood even in languages that do not 
have
        grammticalized tenses, aspectual definitions are not universal. So the
        problem of distinguishing between "completed aspect" and "tense," as
        mentioned above, is the application of the English aspectual model to 
the
        languages of the Polynesians.

        There is a simple model by which tense and aspect can be 
distinguished in
        any language without looking at the foreign language in the light of 
one`s
        own language:

        1) Use a corpus with a huge number of verbs (more than ten thousand 
verbs is
        preferable).
        2) Find out whether verbs with the same morphology systematically 
refer to
        the future or to the past (smaller explainable exceptions are 
accepted). If
        not, tense is not grammticalized in that language.
        3) Find out whether verbs with the same morphology systematically 
refer to
        completed or uncompleted events (smaller explainable exceptions are
        accepted). If not, aspects in the traditional sense is not 
grammaticalized
        in that language.

        I have made these tests for classical Hebrew (my corpus had 79,574 
verbs),
        and my finds are negative. Neither tense nor aspect (with the 
definitions
        completed/incomplete or complete/incomplete) are grammacalized in 
classical
        Hebrew. This is the falsification part of the approach based on the
        hypothetic deductive method. But there is a positive part as well.

        4) Use the parameters "event time," "reference time" and "deictic 
center".
        Find out whether reference time intersects event time in a 
systematically
        different way in verbs with one morphology in contrast with verbs with
        another morphology. If that is the case, the language probably has 
aspects,
        and their nature must be defined on the basis of the nature of this
        intersection of event time by reference time *in that language*.

        In a living language this model is easy to apply, because we have
        informants. In a dead language, the situation is more difficult, and 
only in
        a few clear-cut cases (hundreds rather than thousands) can the test 
of the
        intersection of event time by reference time be applied. In the other 
cases
        we can only use the cruder test of the relationship between event 
time and
        the deictic center.

        The basic problem in studies of Hebrew verbs is that we apply an 
aspectual
        model construed on the basis of aspects in English, Russian, or other
        languages, instead of testing the possible aspects in Hebrew in their 
own
        right. For example, many students of Hebrew use as a premise in their 
study
        that WAYYIQTOL, which, for the most part portray past, completed 
actions,
        either MUST be past tense or express the perfective aspect. Any claim 
that
        WAYYIQTOL is imperfective is unacceptable and will be rejected. 
However,
        in the Phoenician Karatepe inscriptions, the infinitive absolute 
plays the
        same role as WAYYIQTOL in Hebrew. There are 16 infinitive absolutes 
with
        prefixed WAW and 5 without prefixed WAW that describe past, completed
        events. No one would claim that the infinitive absolute has an 
intrinsic
        past tense or perfectivity. Yet, it functions as if that was the 
case! The
        lesson we can learn is that we cannot know the intrinsic meaning of 
verb
        forms by looking at them from the outside, i.e., by looking at their
        functions. The reason is that the functions of verbs in most cases are
        pragmatically conditioned, i.e., the reason for the choice of verb is 
the
        context. We therefore need to look for clauses that are so clear-cut 
that
        the particular functions of the verb with a great deal of certainty 
can be
        said to come from the nature of the verb alone. I have done this test 
in
        classical Hebrew, and my conclusion is that WAYYIQTOL, WEYIQTOL, and 
YIQTOL
        are imperfective, i.e., the intersection of event time by reference 
time in
        a few hundred clear-cut cases is systematically different (and 
qualifes for
        the definition "imperfective") from the intersection in QATAL and 
WEQATAL.

        But please note: In order to test these conclusions one has to get 
rid of
        the straightjacked of the traditional aspectual definitions. One must 
start
        afresh with the fundamental parameters "reference time," "event 
time," and
        "deictic center" and try hard to conduct the study with as little 
prejudice
        as possible.


        **************************
        This is where Polynesian languages [among others] present 
difficulties.
        They do not have a simple Perfect(ive)/Imperfect(ive) distinction, 
nor a
        tense distinction.   'Ka' and 'kua' are tenseless as they can be used 
to
        refer to past, present and future.   'Ka' has no aspect, as it makes 
no
        claims at all about whether the action is completed or incomplete, 
ongoing,
        or any other condition except that it is a state or action.  'Kua' has
        aspect, as it always refers to what are viewed as completed actions or
        states completely entered in to, but there is no 'opposite' that 
indicates
        the imperfect in the same way.  It usually refers to fairly recent 
past, but
        not always  certainly not often enough to attribute 'past time' as 
one of
        its attributes.  'E...ana' is an aspect as it refers to ongoing or
        incomplete actions.  It is made up of 'e' which has the meaning 
'non-past'
        and 'ana' meaning 'imperfect'.  'e..ana' *can* refer to the past 
despite the
        'e'.  Used alone, usually only in story-telling - 'ana' [sometimes 
'ka ..
        ana' in some dialects] refers to past time, 'e' to future [never 
present]
        time.  I think 'ana' is used mainly with the passive, but may be 
wrong on
        that.  You cannot use 'i ... ana' to refer to past imperfect actions 
as in
        English "I was walking" as 'i' is used to mark time without aspect.  
In
        eastern dialects 'e... ana' is usually replace by 'kei [present 
position] te
        [def. art.]...' and that has a past form 'i [past position] te ...', 
but
        then you have a nominal [or pseudo-verbal as it is usually called]
        construction.  Despite 'kei' meaning 'present position' it can have 
future
        meaning.

        Ka ... = beginning of new action - 'inceptive' ( but translating as 
"began
        to ..." is wrong most of the time) [... = position of 'verb']
        Kua ... = complete action or completed state - perfect/ive [but also 
implies
        recent past if used of the past - in Hawai'ian it is 'ua and is 
inceptive
        (replacing 'ka') as often as perfect/ive]
        E ... ana = imperfect/ive
        I ... = past action
        E ... = future action
        ... ana = past action

        Ka is the most commonly used, and has neither tense nor aspect
        Kua cannot always be replaced by 'e ... ana' to make the change from 
perfect
        to imperfect.  Sometimes 'i' is necessary when the imperfect [e... 
ana] is
        cancelled, and 'ka' must be used if the perfect aspect [kua] is to be
        cancelled.  There is no way of indicating present tense as opposed to 
past
        or future.  And ... ana seems to be used only with passive forms, not 
active
        [although my limited knowledge may be misleading me on that].

        How do you make sense out of this - i.e. present it as a system??  No 
form
        of verb contrasts with another, but all allow different aspects of the
        action/state to be emphasised.  There is not a perfect/imperfect 
distinction
          as you cannot use the imperfect in all the situations you can use 
the
        perfect or vice versa.  Can you speak of a tense distinction when 
there is
        no 'present' - although there is a past and in some situations a 
future -
        and the conditions under which 'i' and 'e' can be used overlap only 
in a
        minor way?  I am not sure you can talk of states in terms of tense at 
all.
        While all the Polynesian languages differ greatly in the particles 
they use
        and there is no way of equating the use of any particle in one with a
        particular particle in another, all share this confusing 
charateristic of
        not being able to oppose one form to another in the way that you can
        past/present/future in tense based languages or perfect/imperfect in 
aspect
        based languages.  Perhaps neither tense not aspect are the basis for 
the
        system of forms.  I am not sure applying your tests help to any 
greater
        degree than the traditional definitions in explaining how the system 
works.
        When you consider that the passive is the preferred form of the verb, 
that
        adjectives and nouns, verbs and adverbs are often distinguished only 
when a
        particle is added, and that the use of the articles is still a 
mystery even
        to native speakers [i.e they know when to use which form, but have no 
idea
        of why apart from 'that's just the way it has always been'], perhaps 
your
        colleague's comment about abandoning traditional European definitions 
needs
        to be applied more widely than just to aspect.  The Pacific languages
        [Austronesian, Indo-Pacific and Australian, each in their own ways] 
have not
        been kind to European linguistic theories - perhaps that may partly 
even the
        score where we lost out in other areas :)

        Kevin Riley