Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

> His definitions are so elastic that he can even say on p.438 that
> perfective and imperfective aspect is "not mutually exclusive" and that
> "if an overall picture [in any given context] is enough, different forms
> can be used with the same meaning" (p. 460)! To me, this just shows that
> the definitions are inappropriate. But when it comes down to actual
> details of the text, even these elastic definitions don't always work
> either -- wayyo'mer in Gen 12:1 being an example, which Rolf has so far
> dodged in showing how this can be taken as imperfective.
>
> snip
>
> Now, please show me how wayyo'mer in Gen 12:1 is imperfective.

The question above has been repeated five times or more in different 
posts of DK. My answer that it is not possible in many verbs, 
including this one, to see the relationship between reference time 
and event time, has been ignored.  That is not fair!

A few questions:

1)  As I already have mentioned, S. R. Driver's view was  that the 
verb of Genesis 12:1 was imperfective, "he proceeded to speak". How 
can we know that Driver was wrong, and that the WAYYIQTOL  of the 
verse "looks at the situation from the outside, without necessarily 
distinguishing any of the internal structure of the situation"?

2) Is my definition more "elastic"  or "vague" (that DK said 
elsewhere) than Comrie's? (Please note that I give a lot of details 
explaining the definition.)

RF:

"The imperfective aspect is a close-up view of a small section of the
event where the progressive action is made visible. The perfective
aspect is a view, as if from some distance, of a great part of, or of
the whole of the event, where the progressive action is not made visible."

Comrie:

"The perfective looks at the situation from the outside, without
necessarily distinguishing any of the internal structure of the
situation, whereas the imperfective looks at the situation from inside,
and as such is crucially concerned with the internal structure of the
situation."

3) I am criticized by DK for by the words: "that he can even say on p.438 that
perfective and imperfective aspect is "not mutually exclusive". But 
would not  those saying that the aspects are mutually exclusive say 
that they have uncancellable meaning? If they do not have a fixed 
meaning that cannot change, how can they be mutually exclusive? In 
one place I am criticized because I say that something has semantic 
meaning, and in another context because I am not claiming semantic 
meaning.


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo



>