Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Dear David,

Some comments of yours caught my attention:

However, the question can actually be framed the other way
> around, ie, how can so-called primarily aspect marking forms be used for
> both aspects? I say this because yiqtol, which is supposedly
> imperfective aspect, can be used perfectively (eg Gen 18:11) and qatal,
> which is supposedly perfective aspect, can be used imperfectively (eg
> Gen 38:9; Num 11:8; 21:9; Jud 2:18; 6:3; 2 Kgs 18:4). It is these types
> of issues which I have yet to see an aspectual analysis tackle. (I would
> love to be proved wrong on this and be pointed to the relevant
> literature.)

The claims that the perfective aspect is used imperfectively and the
imperfective aspect is used perfectively are quite dramatic. These claims 
must
be based on a particular definition of aspect, and here is a basic weakness
of most studies of the Hebrew verb. A particular definition of aspect,
applied to other languages than Hebrew is often used. (Often the works of B. 
Comrie, who do not distinguish between aspect and Aktionsart, are used in 
Semitic studies.) And the study is based on this definition. In one of the 
posts referred to by Yitzhak I list seven different  kinds of aspect used in 
the scholarly literature and twenty-four descriptions that are used to refer 
to these "aspects".

Which one is your definition? Could you please demonstrate on the basis to 
the passages you refer to *how* the imperfective aspect can be used 
imperfectively and the perfective aspect be used perfectively.


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli Ph.D
University of Oslo