Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Dear David,

Please see my comments below.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Kummerow" <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2007 8:46 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Verbal Aspect (was Tenses - Deut 6:4)


> Gday Rolf,
>
> See below:

> As for the statement that "One Hebrew verb (the imperfective WAYYIQTOL)
> is used to convey the force (an action + a resultant state) which only
> can be expressed in English by the use of two verbs", the same applies.
> It is only "imperfective" aspect because you have given a different
> definition. Most wayyiqtols are prima facie perfective to most of the
> rest of us. My feeling it is that you should move away from using the
> aspectual terminology of "(im)perfective" aspect, because you operate
> with you own definitions. You should create your own labels because your
> definitions have moved considerably from agreed meanings. When you use
> "imperfective" you mean something entirely different from most of the
> rest of us. This is incredibly confusing, and I feel that you are no
> longer describing aspect.

To use "agreed meaning" is somewhat too bold, since there are more than 20
different definitions of aspect that have been used in the scholarly
literature. You and I will never agree, since our basics are different, but 
a
cordial discussion is still possible. The basic difference between us is
that you start with an arbitrary definition of aspect and applies it to the
Hebrew verbs, while I start without any aspectual definition and reach my
definition by the application of fundamental linguistic parameters to the
Hebrew verbal system. You "force" a definition on the Hebrew  verbs, I get 
my
definition from the verbs. When the parameters are defined, my approach
should in no way be confusing. The basic parameters, "deictic center,"
"reference time," and "event time" that I use was first proposed in 1947 by
Reichenback and has since been used in different linguistic studies.  I
define tense as the relationship between the deictic center and reference
time, thus, tense represents deictic time. I define aspect as the
relationsship between event time and reference time; since the deictic
center is not involved, aspect represents non-deictic time. The linguistic 
literature speaks of TAM relationships (tense-moo-aspect) in the languages 
of the world. The relationship between event time and reference time is not 
tense, and it is not mood, butit is the third category,namely, aspect. So I 
need no new label. The advantage of using the mentioned fundamental 
parameters is that the aspects in any language can be analysed, and the 
similarities and differences can be mapped. I would say that just a cursory 
knowledge of English and Hebrew show that their aspectual systems are very 
different; and then we have Russian which is still very different.

> Because we operate from different methodologies to begin with, I feel we
> will never agree.
>
> > > 2. With "complete" vis-a-vis "completed" I'm simply trying to get away
> > > from tying aspect to time - "completed" to me implied just that, a
> > > completed action and hence one performed in the past.
> >
> > RF
> > It is very fine to skip "completed," which entails time. But you have not
> > answered my question: What is a "complete" action?
>
> Only that the action is conceptualised "completely": it has a beginning
> and an end, without recourse to its internal makeup. This is the
> conventionally agree definition, is it not? If (im)perfective does not
> fit for BH, it does not mean that the definitions of aspect need to be
> redefined to suit. It may just mean, as I would argue, that the picture
> is complex, as tense is starting to figure within the verbal system as
> well.

RF
Here we are at the crucial point, the difinitions of aspect. As already
mentioned, there are more than twenty different definitions of aspect, so
how can we know which to choose for Hebrew? Let us test your definitions
bycomparing Genesis 1 and 2,

1:1 QATAL: create

1:7 WAYYIQTOL: make

2:5 YIQTOL: sprout

2:6 YIQTOL: ascend

All these verbs have a beginning and an end. How can we know that "create"
is conceptualised "without recourse to its internal makeup" but "sprout" and
"ascend" are conceptualised "with recourse to its internal makeup"? And what
about "make"?  If these verbs are not typical examples, you are free to
choose any verbs in the Tanach to demonstrate your aspectual definitions. If
you cannot demonstrate this distinction on the basis of the verbs 
themselves, your aspectual definitions are
arbitrary and we must ask for a reason to use them at all.
>


> By the way, when is your article in ZDMG scheduled for publication? I
> checked the latest issue last week and it still didn't appear.

The bibliography is: R. Furuli (2005) "The Verbal System of Classical Hebrew 
An Attempt to Distinguish Between Semantic and Pragmatic Fctors". In, 
Current Issues in the Analysis of Semitic Grammar and Lexicon I, eds L. 
Edzard and J. Retsö, Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes Band LVI, 
3, pp. 205-231.
> Regards,
> David Kummerow.

Best regards,

Rolf Furuli