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: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 19:26:22 +0200

Dear James,

See my comments below.

Hi Rolf,

Quoting Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>:

Dear James,

Your questions below are appropriate, so I will give a few examples.
But for my part I think it is time to stop participating in this
thread. I see no reason to participate in a discussion for the sake
of the discussion, as some do, in order to get the last word. I have
tried to concentrate on the big issues of Hebrew verbs, and for those
interested, I think it is time to read the works of Comrie, Broman
Olsen and myself.

The deictic center (C) is the vantage point from which an event is
seen. It is often the present moment or the time of writing. Events
that are not instantaneous take time, and the time from the beginning
to the end is "event time" (E). Because of the nature of the
English verbal system, E is in most cases considered in relation to a
time line. But that is not necessary, because we can speak of "a
two-hour walk" without placing it in the past or in the future.

Communication means that the speaker or writer makes the whole event
or a part of that event visible for the listener or reader. In order
to make a particular part visible, aspects are used-in English the
participle and perfect. The parameter "reference time" (R) can be
compared to a pointing finger that points to a particular part of an
event, either after the beginning and before the end, or at the end
(the only two options in English). The small part of event time being
made visible by the pointing finger is reference time (R). To say it
in a technical way, R intersects E at the nucleus when the
imperfective aspect is used and at the coda when the perfective
aspect is used. Please consider the four examples below.

(1) She was walking in the garden.

(2) She has walked in the garden.

(3) #Yesterday she has walked in the garden.

(4) While she was walking in the garden, her husband entered the scene.

The form "was" in (1) signals that R comes before C, which is the
present moment. This means that we know that the walking-event
factually was terminated- its end had been reached before the present
moment. However, the writer of the clause, while signalling that the
event is terminated, does not want to make the whole event visible
for his audience. He points his finger at the middle of the event;
thus R intersects E at the nucleus. There can be reasons for making
just a part of the event visible, such as we see in (4).

Perfect can be defined as "the continuing present relevance of a past
situation". In (2) perfect is used, and that connects the
walking-event with the present moment. We know that the event is
terminated, and the author's finger points at the end of the event-R
intersects E at the coda. The two hours of the walking-event is not
made visible, only its termination.

Clause (3) is ungrammatical because the event is not connected with
the present moment. This example can throw some light on your view
that "tense and aspect are cancellable to the verb system of all
languages". I guess that if we observed people for a long time in the
UK or the US, we would discover one or more persons who used clauses
similar to (3); thus speaking in an ungrammatical way. The
consequence would be that "the present relevance" of perfect was
cancelled, and your words are justified. But we must remember that
this is an ungrammatical use, which means that there are particular
rules, and these are violated.

This throws light on my use of "semantic meaning". I would say that
the English perfect (the perfective aspect) has a uniform
interpretation-a past event is connected with the present moment.
This is the use governed by grammatical rules, and counterexamples
should not violate grammatical rules, but they should be found in
normal speech situations.

The interesting question therefore is: Can we find normal uses of the
perfect in English were R does not intersect E at the coda? In other
words, can we find examples of perfect that signals that the end of
the event has not yet been reached? If such examples cannot be found,
we should accept that English perfect has an uncancellable semantic
meaning.


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo

Hi Rolf,

for the benefit of the list members can you provide a quick
explanation of tense and aspect as defined by your parameters event
time, reference time and deictic centre with a couple of example
sentences that illustrate the use of the tools?

I'm fairly sure that using this same method and applying it to any
modern language we would find that both tense and aspect are
cancellable to the verb systems of all languages. The reason I make
this observation is that while I concede that there may be an
uncancellable meaning which is common to all uses of a verb form I'm
pretty sure that language speakers are unaware of it when they use a
verb form and are more conscious of the use they wished to express.


Consider the following almost synonymous sentences:

1) He has been in the corner for over an hour.
2) He has been standing in the corner for over an hour.

Broman Olsen analyses 1) and 2) as "present perfect progressive," which means that it is a combination of the imperfective and perfective aspects - and I agree. First E is intersected by R at the nucleus, and then at the coda. A clause in present perfective progressive cannot be compared with a perfect clause.

In order to find examples where the perfective aspect portrays actions that are ongoing, and where the end is not reached, you can only use the perfect participle - he has stood.


Also consider the following:

1) I have gone for a long time (doesn't make sense)
2) I have been gone for a long time (now makes sense)
3) I have known this for a long time (unlike sentence 1 this makes sense)

Where is the intersection of E by R in 3)? Please consider a) and b) below. I do not have the intuition of a native speaker, but for me a) is a good clause, while b) is odd and ungrammatical. In a) there is agreement in time between "was" and "was born, and R intersects E at the nucleus. But in b) there is not agreement between "have known" and "was born, because "was born" is in the past and "have known" i connected with the present. So, in 3) R intersects E at the coda.

a) While I was knowing the secret, my daughter was born.

b) While I have known the secret, my daughter was born.

We can also use fientive examples, as seen in c) and d). Here again, I would say that d) is odd and ungrammatical.

c) While I was working in London, my daughter was born.

d) While I have worked in London, my daughter was born.

We may use other stative examples, as in e-h). Clause e) is a fine clause even if the stay in California terminated two year before the utterance. But still it has a connection with the present, as seen in f) which is odd and g) which is fine. Clause h) is odd and ungrammatical, so again, R intersects E at the coda.


e) I have been in California.

f) The late Lord Russel has been in California.

g) The late Lord Russel had been in California.

h) While I have been in California, my daughter was born.

On the basis of your and my examples I still stick to the view that English perfect (have + the perfective participle) has a uniform interpretation: R intersects E at the coda.


As I mentioned, I suspect that each language may have specific verbs which can cancel a default grammaticalisation because of internal semantic reasons like English 'think'. e.g.

He works at the factory (repeated event)
He thinks she's lying (reference limited to the present)

These examples illustrate my major reservation with your work at this time. Have you considered the possibility of semantic factors constrained to specific verbs?

James Christian

James Christian





Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page