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 1:40 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] On the history of Hebrew YIQTOL and the Hebrew verb


> Dear Arnaud,
>
> When we study a language and see that a clause has a particular meaning, a 
> linguist will ask: Which part(s) of the clause cause this particular 
> meaning? Is this meaning (for example tense) an intrinsic part of one or 
> more of the constituents, or is the meaning caused by an interplay of 
> different factors?
>
> 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.
>
> 1) Tomorrow I will work.
>
> 2) Tomorrow I will come
>
> 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.
***
(Sorry for answering a bit late, I was not home this weekend
I Hope the thread is not closed yet)

I'm not sure what BW) is.
I don't understand what it stands for.

Anyway, I still disagree with your approach, which is semantic rather than 
properly linguistic.

In a language like English (and that's true for French as well), verbs do 
not have a pre-crystalized aspect.
So-called tenses cause the aspect to crystalize in a way or another.
For that matter "to work" is aspect-neutral.

The situation is exactly the opposite in Russian, where aspect is 
lexicalized.
You have to choose between "to work" n°1 and "to work" n°2, which are 
already pre-crytalized.

A.
***





> > We often see in discussions of Hebrew verbs that
> > aspect is confused with lexical meaning or
> > Aktionsart. Therefore, it is important to give
> > clear definitions of the terms. Aspect is given
> > different definitions in the literature, often
> > psychological definitions. A person discussing
> > aspect chooses one of the definitions, and if
> > other persons use different definitions,
> > confusion arise. The only way to avoid this
> > "random choice of an aspect definition" of which
> > I am aware, is to use the basic parameters
> > "deictic center," "reference time" and "event
> > time." By using these univesal parameters, one
> > needs not to start with a particular aspect
> > definition, but the meaning of each aspect will
> > emerge after one has worked with the text for a
> > long period.
> > ***
> > These "universal parameters" as you say seem to be drawn from a mix of 
> > Enunciative, Semantic and Grammatical theories.
> > I see that mix as descriptively troublesome.
>
>
> You are wrong here. Both "deictic center" and "event time" are objective 
> properties, and not a mix of anything.
***
Sorry
as I said before, these properties look semantic rather than purely 
linguistic.
So I disagree with the approach.

How do you define a "deictic center" in plain English?
A.
***



You may want to read
> Bernard Comtie's  elementary books "Tense" and "Aspect,"   in order to 
> understand that these are fundamental linguistic terms. Comrie also uses 
> "reference time," but different linguists have slightly different 
> definitions of this term. Therefore, clear-cut definitions are needed.
***
You seem to be the only who understands you own "clear-cut" definitions.
I'm afraid I don't.

This is the third time I request you to explain how you handle the pair:
1. Ann walked the dog one hour ago
2. Ann was walking the dog one hour ago

Is it possible to see how your analytical grid works here?

Many thanks.

Arnaud Fournet