Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Randall,

Please tell us your definition of perfective and imperfective. What 
are the characteristics of a perfective and an imperfective verb 
respectively, and by which criteria can the two verbs (actions) be 
distinguished?


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo


>  >Even if one
> would say that the writer meant to make visible
> that the cows came up out of the Nile and began
> to stand beside those on the riverbank, the end
> of the state is still not reached. So, both in
> both the state expressed by the participle and by
> the WAYYIQTOL R intersects E after the beginning
> and before the end. So how can this WAYYIQTOL be
> perfective?>
>
> The above is a snippet from a very long thread. There are
> a couple of disturbing points that might prove fruitful
> for a thread that can reach some resolution.
>
> The quoted discussion above on Gen 41 ends in an
> apparent rhetorical question, that is, the question
> expects a negative answer "it can't be perfective".
>
> This question raises two questions of its own:
> if it turns out that the phrase 'and they stood beside the
> cows" can indeed be viewed perfectively in the context,
> then
> 1) was the rhetorical question "how can this be
> perfective?" intended to hide other possibilities?
> If so, it would be unreliable scholarship.
> or 2) was the rhetorical question "how can this be
> perfective?" expressing that the person writing was
> incapable of finding an answer? If so, it is equally
> disturbing as unreliable scholarship.
>
> So can 'stand' be viewed perfectively in such a context?
> Of course.
> Though I won't drag the list thru the 434 xx of la`amod.
> The basic sense of the perfective here is 'to take a stand'.
> This is similar to the statement made by Rolf in the long thread
> >  "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.">
>
> In other words, with some verbs it is not necessary that every
> bit of 'stative time' be included if the stable state itself has been
> reached. In the case of the cows above, this makes a
> compelling, common sense solution. The cows went up and
> then perfectively entered a state of standing.
> 2Chr 20:20 uve-tset-am `amad Yhoshafat vayyomer . . .
> and while they were going out (to the wilderness) Yoshafat
> took a stand and said . . .
> 2 Samuel 20:11 and 12 is a similar use of `amad, and Rolf will
> be happy that these are a 'suffix-TAM' verb.
> 2 Ki 2:7 fifty prophets halxu vayya`amdu went and stood from
> afar and the two of them `amdu stood/stopped at the Jordan.
>
> One would have to acknowledge that vatta`amodna in Gen 41
> is at least as perfective as `amad in the above contexts.
> And if this is acknowledged, then the two disturbing questions
> arise.
>
> One gets another glimpse of this whole phenomenon in the
> 'unanswered' question about Genesis 12 vayyomer 'and he
> said'.
>
> David rightly pointed out that the words quoted were finished,
> that the end point of the speaking was included in the context.
>
> However, in Rolf's favor he could have pointed out that
> languages and authors may chose to 'finesse' a quotation
> frame, even if the context is a simple, completed event.
> For example, in Greek (NB: I am not claiming that Greek equals
> Hebrew, only that it is an example of a mixed aspectual approach)
> it is common to use EIPEN 'he said (perfective)' for introducing
> quoted speech. However, Greek authors would also vary their
> introductions and could say ELEGEN 'he was saying
> (imperfective)' for various reasons, like providing background
> for a more decisive event/speech that was to follow, or for a
> repeated speech, or for a long complicated speech, etc.
> So the event itself, the quotation, may be present in whole,
> but the introductory verb need not be perfective. However, since
> the event is presented in whole, the natural reading is perfective
> and the burden of proof would be on anyone claiming that the
> default speech frame was imperfective. One can certainly
> cite both the LXX translators and the targum translators
> as supporting David's reading at Gen 12:1. The LXX chose
> EIPEN (perfective) and the targum chose ve-amar (perfective).
> And the 2000 occurrences of vayyomer/etc./ line up with
> perfective patterns. (Even if we don't list and discuss them
> all here.) So David's position stands, even if it is not an
> absolute.
>
> This brings us back to the trustworthiness of the analyst.
> If someone says that Gen 41 vata`amodna cannot possibly
> be perfective, and they use similar analysis to dismiss the
> concerted weight of the Aramaic targum, Syriac, Arabic,
> and LXX, not to mention the internal Hebrew tradition of
> complementary patterns of vayyiqtol // qatal in extended
> contexts, they will find few takers of their position.
>
> -
> Randall Buth, PhD
> www.biblicalulpan.org
> randallbuth AT gmail.com
> Biblical Language Center
> Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew