Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] no to aspect

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] no to aspect
  • Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2011 10:27:29 +0100

Dear Randall,

The word "idiosyncratic" is defined as "a tendency, type of behaviour, mannerism, etc., of a specific person; quirk." The word has negative connotations and focus on the person rather than on the data. Scholars should not argue ad hominem, but they should point to the data.

My dissertation is entitled, "A New Understanding of the Verbal System of Classical Hebrew An Attempt to Distinguish Between Semantic and Pragmatic Factors." This means that the conclusions are different from those found in grammars and monographs. Scholars often disagree, but disagreement without knowing in detail the data and viewpoints of the other part, is hardly good scholarship.

There are several reasons why my dissertation should be studied:

1) It is the only work on Hebrew verbs where all the 79,574 finite and infinite verbs of the Tanakh, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the old Inscriptions and Ben Sira have been studied. (it contains tables with the analysis of 2,106 passages with 4,261 verbs.)

2) It is the only work on Hebrew verbs that scrupulously has distinguished between semantic meaning (uncancellable meaning) and conversational pragmatic implicature (cancellable meaning taken from the context).

3) It is the only work on Hebrew verbs that has not started with a particular definition (an a priori definition) of the imperfective aspect and perfective aspect, but instead has used the fundamental linguistic parameters deictic center, event time, and reference time. Therefore, the definition of aspect is a result of the study of Hebrew texts.

Nir started this thread by denying that aspect is a part of the verbal system of Classical Hebrew. But he does not want to tell us the definition of what he rejects. So, I ask you: What is the definition of the perfective aspect and the imperfective aspect? If the perfective definition is "complete/whole," as your article seems to suggest, can you please elucidate this definition.

The definition " completed," which also is used by some to define perfectivity, can be understood, because it is seen in relation to time: the action is finished before speech time. But how can we see that an action expressed by a verb is "complete" or "whole"? In relation to what can we understand this completeness or wholeness? If this is your definition, can you give a few examples from the Tanakh of verbs or clauses that are complete or whole, and others that are not complete or whole?


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli


>Dear Bryant,
No, all the prefix forms are imperfective in all genres, and all the
suffix forms are perfective in all genres.

Bryant,
That expresses a VERY idiosyncratic viewpoint. Some/most would say a non-
Hebrew viewpoint. Rolf has argued it on list and in his dissertation.
There are, of course, formal, semantic, and pragmatic distinctions between
wayyiqtol and yiqtol, recognized by almost all who have studied the
comparative
Semitic evidence, apparently recognized by the LXX, Syriac, and targumists
all,
as well as conforming to the 'transmitted text'. aka MT.
This list probably doesn't need to repeat everything that has been said
ad nauseum.


--
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




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page