Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Verbal Aspect (was Tenses - Deut 6:4)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Verbal Aspect (was Tenses - Deut 6:4)
  • Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 15:34:03 +1000

Hi George,

Here's another reference on this topic which I found on Friday:

Moore, Kevin E. 2006. “Space-to-Time Mappings and Temporal Concepts.” Cognitive Linguistics 17: 199-244.

Again, the finding is the same: deictic conceptualisation of verb forms only occurs when tense is to some degree grammaticalised.

Regards,
David Kummerow.



Hi George,

I have now found mention of a slight link between spatial deixis (which, I take it, is a necessary condition to give rise to the conceptualisation of viewing "the significance of verbs spatially") and aspect. Dahl (1998: 67) says regarding progressives: "The overwhelming majority of progressive constructions in the world's languages are periphrastic and originate in various types of phraseological constructions, often with an original spatial meaning, such as 'be at doing something.'" Note, though, that this is different to what you are suggesting and the link between aspect and spatial deixis is there only in some progressive constructions, not for perfective or imperfective.

Dahl, Östen. 1998. “Aspect.” Pages 64-71 in Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics. Edited by Jacob L. Mey. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Regards,
David Kummerow.

Gday George.

Sorry that I misunderstood you. But you did say: "the verbal conjugations do not speak so much about tense, but rather the reader's distance from the action. In other words, the verbs do not work on a temporal plain, but rather a spatial plain. Tense must be inferred secondarily from the spatial sphere."

So is it that you understand the verbal system as grammaticalising a
foreground-background distinction and/or grammaticalising information
structure? But this view would have to be a little more nuanced than simply "actions of lesser or background significance are given in YIQTOL" etc etc; ie these types of distinctions would only apply in certain "text types", so a more fine-grained or constructional approach would be necessary.

Personally, I think the view that the BH verbal system grammaticalises "the significance of verbs spatially" needs substantial justificantion in the light of the crosslinguistic or typological evidence which would dictate otherwise. That is, since other languages do not seem to grammaticalise "the significance of actions spatially" but rather TIME is viewed spatially, then this calls into question this understanding of BH. Now it could be that BH is unique - so unique that it is unlike any other language we know of in this regard - but that needs substantial justification I think, esp. with a dead language where we do not have speakers.

In any case, see the methodology advanced in:

Miller, Cynthia L. "Methodological Issues in Reconstructing Language Systems
from Epigraphic Fragments." Pages 281-305 in _The Future of Biblical
Archaeology: Reassessing Methodologies and Assumptions_. Edited by James K. Hoffmeier and Alan Millard. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004.

Regards,
David Kummerow.








Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page