Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] On the history of Hebrew YIQTOL and the Hebrew verb

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Arnaud Fournet" <fournet.arnaud AT wanadoo.fr>
  • To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>, "Rolf Furuli" <furuli AT online.no>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] On the history of Hebrew YIQTOL and the Hebrew verb
  • Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 15:56:43 +0100


----- 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







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page