Biblical Hebrew Forum

[David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>]

Hi Rolf,

Sure there's somewhat different definitions, but central to them are 
usually features I've mentioned. My feeling is that I haven't forced 
these categories on the BH data since these categories have worked for 
others for pre-BH/Canaanite etc, but I don't see entirely working for 
BH, again for the reasons I outlined in my post to George.

Now I agree that the Piel can express a resultative action. I am at a 
loss to see how the BH prefix verb expresses this. How do you see your 
"basic parameters" working to express the resultative in Gen 18:10, 
which I take to be a future perfective action? If the prefix verb is 
imperfective under the analyses of some, it must in this case not be 
used aspectually. I take it that the future tense is marked.

As for the verbs from Genesis you mention, I don't take them as marking 
aspect so I don't feel a need to interact with your questions at length; 
I'll leave that for someone who wants to defend the aspectual position. 
However: 1:1 QATAL: create - a past tense for me. 1:7 WAYYIQTOL: make - 
a narrative past tense for me. 2:5 YIQTOL: sprout - personally, I'm not 
sure of terem-clauses (and I haven't yet read Hatav's article on this in 
the latest Hebrew Studies). 2:6 YIQTOL: ascend - iterative for me 
(prefix verb displaying its aspectual heritage).

Regarding the article I'm chasing, it was one you said you'd written on 
Phonecian I think, maybe on the infinitive?

Regards,
David Kummerow.


> Dear David,
>
> Please see my comments below.
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "David Kummerow" <farmerjoeblo at hotmail.com <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>>
> To: <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org 
> <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>>
> 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