Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] b-hebrew Uncancellable meaning and Hebrew verbs

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] b-hebrew Uncancellable meaning and Hebrew verbs
  • Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 11:15:53 +0200



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









Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page