Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com>]

In a recent interchange there was a misunderstanding of my position:

>>*When Randall used the example with BW) in a future setting (example
*>>*2) below), he is correct that the clause is not open-ended, as
*>>*clause 1) below is.  But his conclusion that this shows that the
*>>*clause is not imperfective, is wrong. He simply confuses Aktionsart
*>>*and aspect.

there was no confusion of Aktionsart and aspect, at all. See below.

*>>*
*>>*1) Tomorrow I will work.
*>>*
*>>*2) Tomorrow I will come
*>****
*>*sorry
*>*but this is completely irrelevant.
*>*
*>*You keep resorting to examples that do not extract the real meanings
*>*of verbal constructions.
*>*A.
*>****
*>*
*>>*
*>>*The verb BW) is either semelfactive (instantaneous) or telic (with
*>>*the meaning "come in"). So the reason why 2) is not open-ended is
*>>*the lexical meaning of the verb and the Aktionsart of BW).  The
*>>*verb "work" is dynamic and durative, and therefore 2) is open-ended.
*>****
*>*Irrelevant and void.
*>*A.
*>****
*

A. appears to be correct, the lexical meaning and Aktionsart of bo' are
irrelevant to the discussion.

bo' is a semantically "telic" verb and yes,
a telic verb is irrelevant to aspectual discussions. Telic verbs
may predominate in perfectively viewed situations, but not necessarily.

bo' "come" does not demand a 'non-open-ended' reading //'arrived'.

A telic verb can be used in aspectually imperfective situations,
e.g.
in Neh 13.22 the imperfective situation is marked by using a participle
with yihyu: asher yihyu ... ba-im 'those who would be purifying themselves
and coming'.
Likewise, Num 27:21 is clearly imperfective (here an open-ended
repetition of telic events).
And I read 2 Sam 15:37 imperfectively "Abshalom would be/was coming (soon).
[that is, Hushai got there while Abshalom was still on the way]"
Abshalom didn't arrive until 2Sm 16:15-16.

So semantically telic verbs may prototypically include an endpoint in their
future situations. But not always. The aspectual 'open-endedness', or not,
of a verb is not related to its aktionsart or lexical semantics.

And maHar being restricted to yiqtol is a function of a time restriction,
not an aspectual restriction.


-- 
Randall Buth, PhD
www.biblicalulpan.org
randallbuth AT gmail.com
Biblical Language Center
Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life