Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Arnaud Fournet" <fournet.arnaud AT wanadoo.fr>]

----- 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
***