Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

> Dear James,

If you read my dissertation, you may perhaps change your mind 
regarding the results of applying my model to different languages. 
Regarding English and Hebrew aspects, my conclusion is that Hebrew 
and English aspects have three similarities and three differences, 
and because the most important side is different, these aspects are 
very different. BTW, in my system English simple past is not an 
aspect but a tense; the perfective aspect in English is the perfect 
participle.

If you apply my model to Classical Greek, the conclusion is that 
aorist represents only the perfective aspect and not past tense, 
while imperfect is a combination of the imperfective aspect and past 
tense.

The characteristics of a language that lacks tense, is that all its 
finite verb forms in normal clauses (not hypothetical clauses) can be 
used for past, present, and future. This is true in Classical Hebrew, 
but not in Classical Greek, English, and Norwegian.


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo



> While I agree that Rolf's analysis of the verb forms has great value and has
> inspired many people to start asking the right questions the main problem I
> have with Rolf's method of analysis is this:
>
> If we were to employ the method used by Rolf to analyse verb forms I'm sure
> that we would get pretty much the same results for every human language.
> That is to say that we would conclude from the data that tense is not
> grammaticalised in any verb forms of any language.
>
> e.g.
>
> Yesterday I went to the shop (unambiguous past, perfective aspect)
> Sally went to the shop every day of her life (unambgiuous past, imperfective
> aspect (repeated action)
> As I went to the shop I saw a big fat bird eating rice (unambiguous past,
> imperfective aspect (continuous action interrupted by a perfective action))
> If I went to the shop I'd buy it for you (hypothetical future)
>
> Conclusion. Past tense is not grammaticalised in the English 'simple past'.
>
> And so this calls into question the value of Rolf's analysis for real world
> tasks like translation. We could analyse the verb form 'went' for
> uncancellable semantic meaning and get surprising results but for real world
> tasks like translating the verb form 'went' into, say, Italian this
> knowledge of itself would be of little use. The sentences above clearly show
> several different uses of the verb form and to translate them properly it is
> the usage of the verb which will likely dominate its translation.
>
> James Christian
>
> 2010/1/31 K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
>
> >  Stoney:
> >
> >  On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 4:46 PM, s.a.breyer <s.a.breyer AT gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >  >
> >  > Rolf:
> >  >
> >  > My faith in the admirable clarity and rigor of your analysis is
> >  > profoundly shaken by this:
> >  >
> >  > > It is a fundamental linguistic truth that verbs used in narratives
> >  > have past reference.
> >  >
> >  > On what basis do you make this assertion? It seems to me neither
> >  > self-evident nor borne out by linguistic fact, teste folktale and joke
> >  > on the one hand, and the practice of many eminent writers of fiction on
> >  > the other.
> >  >
> >  > Stoney Breyer
> >  > Writer / Touchwood Creative
> >  >
> >  > In Biblical Hebrew, where almost all the narratives are history, i.e.
> >  past.
> >  I don't think he means modern authors, nor folklore.
> >
> >  Karl W. Randolph.
> >  _______________________________________________
> >  b-hebrew mailing list
> >  b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> >  http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew