Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

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

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Arnaud Fournet" <fournet.arnaud AT wanadoo.fr>
  • To: <furuli AT online.no>, <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: [b-hebrew] Fw: no to aspect
  • Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2011 11:22:03 +0100


----- Original Message ----- From: "Rolf Furuli" <furuli AT online.no>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2011 10:27 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] no to aspect


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.
***
I certainly do not deny that your dissertation represents a colossal amount of work,
but this would sound like proof by overwhelming amount of data.

I disagree that your fundamental parameters are truly linguistic.

A.
***




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?
***
How do you explain the difference between:
1. Ann walked the dog one hour ago
2. Ann was walking the dog one hour ago
with your "fundamental parameters"?

Arnaud Fournet
***




  • [b-hebrew] Fw: no to aspect, Arnaud Fournet, 02/05/2011

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page