Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Randall,

You use the word "imperfective." Why do you refuse to tell us what 
you mean by "imperfective" and "perfective"?

In what you have written below you still confuse aspect, Aktionsart, 
and other linguistic factors.

In English, the present participle expresses the imperfective aspect 
and perfect the perfective aspect. The perfect of example 3 shows 
that one single peak was reached; the action was completed. The 
interpretation of 4) must be that she reached different peaks, 
including the last one.

Examples 1) and 2) show the interplay of aspect, Aktionsart and other 
parts of a clause. Because "reach" is semelfactive (instantaneous), 
the natural interpretation of 1) is that Mary was on the point of 
reaching the peak, but she had not reached it yet. The situation is 
open-ended. Why must 2) be interpreted differently than 1)? Because 
of the plural substantive. Thus, 2) does not imply that she was on 
the point of reaching peak after peak, but rather that she had 
reached peak after peak.

These examples show that whether the arguments (subject or object) of 
a clause are singular or plural will influence the way we interpret 
the clause.

1) Mary was reaching the peak.

2) Mary was reaching the peaks.

3) Mary has reached the peak.

4) Mary has reached the peaks.


Definiteness/Indefiniteness may also influence the interpretation of 
the clause.  The verb "fill" is telic, which means that the end of 
the action is conceptually included in the verb. Examples 5) and 6) 
show that the end of the action is included. But 7) is open-ended. 
The verb "fill" is still telic, but the end is not included. Why? 
Because the definite article is lacking.  Please note that the three 
verbs have future tense, and future is not an aspect.

5) Ann will fill the bottle

6) Ann will fill the bottles.

7) Ann will fill bottles.

Let us look at Nehemiah 13:22.  The most natural way to view the 
relative clause, is that it is modal. If this is the case, an 
aspectual discussion is not possible. If the clause is in the 
indicative, we note that the subject is plural. So, the meaning could 
be that one Levite would come to the gate (the end of the action), 
then another Levite, and so on. In Numbers 27:21 the subject is 
plural as well, and the other examples tell little.

I do not deny that a telic verb can be open-ended, because clauses 
can be constructed in different ways. Even a semelfactive verb can 
signal an egressive situation (the end is almost reached), as in 1). 
The important point I have tried to stress, is the importance of 
differentiating between semantics and pragmatics. When we give a 
clause a certain interpretation, we should always ask which parts of 
the clause do what. How do singularity/plurality, 
definiteness/indefiniteness,  the adverbials and the aspect 
contribute to the meaning?

When we in Hebrew see a telic verb with future reference, the default 
interpretation is that the end is included. And the reason simply is 
that the end is conceptually included in the lexical meaning of a 
telic verb. This has no bearing at all on the nature of the aspect 
that is used.




Best regards,

Rolf Furuli



> 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
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew