Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] no to aspect

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] no to aspect
  • Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 12:13:17 +0100

Dear Karl,

In the linguistic literature, there are twenty or thirty different definitions of aspect. How can we know what is the correct definition, or if any of them is correct? The basic point I have tried to stress over and over again, is that we cannot start our study of a dead language with the definition of aspect of our choice. First we need to test the language for tense (grammaticalized location in time). This is a simple test. If the language does not have tenses, we need to find the meaning of the conjugations on the basis of a study of great parts of the text of the language. In this way we can find the meaning of the aspects in this language.

It is correct that "all action, no matter how brief, has duration." This is at least true if we use an atomic clock. However, in order to find order inside a language, we speak of a conceptually semelfactive or instantaneous action, such as a cough or a hickup. In my dissertation I show that durativity, dynamicity, and telicity in some verbs represent semantic meaning. But supposed semelfactive events represents conversational pragmatic implicature.



It is important to realize that aspect, just as modality, is not an objective property; it is a subjective viewpoint; it makes visible a part of an action or the whole action. Both aspects can be used with all kinds of Aktionsarts. The combination of aspect and Aktionsart and other factors make visible particular nuances of meaning. The verb "knock" is semelfactive, and "work" is durative and dynamic.

The verb in 1) has past tense (it is not an aspect). We learn that Peter knocked at the door, but it is kept invisible whether he knocked once or several times. In 2) we see that he knocked several times. An adverbial and past tense can make visible a particular nuance that only past tense does not make visible. In example 3) we see the perfective aspect, and it signals that that the knocking is completed. But we do not know whether Peter knocked once or several times (Please remember that English aspects are different from Hebrew ones). Example 4) is imperfective, The combination of the imperfective aspect and a semelfactive verb causes an iterative interpretation. Moreover, we learn that at speech time the knocking was not completed.

1) Peter knocked at the door.

2) Peter knocked at the door for an hour.

3) Peter has knocked at the door.

4) Peter was knocking at the door.

Example 5) describes a durative and dynamic situation. The past tense shows that Peter's working occurred before speech time, and that it was finished. But we are not told how long Peter worked. The adverbial in 6) tells us how long he worked. Example 7) is perfective, and we learn that the work was completed. Example 8) is imperfective. It signals that the event occurred before speech time, and the focus is on the event in progress; the end is not seen. This is even more clear in 9). The adverbial shows that the event was completed, but the focus is on the event in progress, and the end is not made visible.

Example 9) is used to show that our knowledge of the world also may contribute to the interpretation of a clause. Because we know that The New York Times is published every day, the most likely interpretation is that Peter read the paper every day.


5) Peter worked.

6) Peter worked for an hour.

7) Peter has worked.

8) Peter was working.

9) Yesterday Peter was working in the garden.

10) Last year Peter read the New York Times.

The use of the English aspects are much more restricted than the use of the Hebrew aspects. But the examples show that also English aspects make something visible and other things invisible. Both aspects can be used with verbs in all kinds of Aktionsarts. When I now discuss your examples, please keep in mind that aspects are not objective properties. The aspects are more like peepholes, through which we can see a part of the event or the whole event. Durativity, on the other hand, is an objective property, and it has nothing to do with aspect. This means that both aspects can express instantaneous events and events in progress.


Genesis 1:3 "light came into existence"

The verb HYH can both be stative and fientive, but often it has the sense "to become" rather than "to be."

The expression "come into existence" is durative, dynamic, and telic. What is made visible by the imperfective WAYYIQTOL? Please consider Numbers 3:13. The phrasal verb "strike down" is durative, dynamic, and telic. The adverbial shows that the event is past and completed. What is the role of the infinitive? The infinitive with its suffix "to strike down I" has no time reference and no aspectual meaning. In the clause it functions as subject and verbal, and alone it only makes visible a part of the action; the infinitive neither tells us the time of the action nor whether is was completed or not. An infinitive is different from a YIQTOL, but the example shows that a verbal in a clause needs not signal time reference or that the action was completed. I mentioned in a previous post that in Phoenician the infinitive absolute is the narrative verb, and this form is timeless and aspectless.

Numbers 3:13 "on the day I struck down all the firstborn in Egypt" (literally "on day to strike down I all firstborn in land Egypt")

The imperfective aspect in Hebrew makes visible a small part of progressive action. Applied to Genesis 1:3, the imperfective WAYYIQTOL simply makes visible a part of the "coming-into-existence" event (just as did the infinitive in Numbers 3:13), and our understanding that the event is past and completed is based on the conjunction WAW, prefixed to HYH, the Aktionsart of HYH, and the context.

VERY IMPORTANT: Do not confuse Aktionsart and aspect! Do not confuse the objective nature of the event and what is made visible of it by the use of the aspect.

Then to your next example.


Exodus 3:7 "I have heard... I have seen... I know"

To" know" is a state, but in this context "to hear" and "to see" must be taken as fientive verbs. A state is durative, but it is not dynamic; I am aware of only one state that is telic, namely, "be pregnant." Any part of a state is similar to any other part, or to the state as a whole. To "see" and "hear" as fientive verbs are durative and dynamic. What is made visible by the three perfective verbs? An imperfective verb tend to make visible a small part of the action with details visible, while the perfective aspect tend to make a bigger part of the action visible, or the whole action, but without details. At speech time God "knew," and after that he did not stop to know. What is made visible, is a great part of the state of knowing, up to speech time; his continued knowledge after that is not made visible. I would take "I have heard" and "I have seen" as making visible the whole events of hearing and seeing up to speech time. The perfective aspect does not make visible the details of the hearing and seeing, but only the broad situations themselves.

AGAIN: Ignore the Aktionsart of the verbs, and ask what is made visible by the aspects.

You wrote:

I would not be surprised if a graduate student were to do the same statistical analysis as you did for your dissertation, but instead of focusing on tense as you did, focus on aspect, that he would find that aspect is not grammaticalized just as tense is not grammaticalized.

The result of such a study would depend of the definition of aspect chosen. However, there are more than 10 different relationships between event time and reference time in Hebrew (in English there are only two differences). By mapping these differences, interesting patterns will be seen.


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli



Rolf:

On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 1:27 AM, Rolf Furuli <<mailto:furuli AT online.no>furuli AT online.no> wrote:


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.


Now I am not a professional linguist and Randall often talks in terminology that I never heard of in linguistics classes that I attended, but I would have to agree with Nir that Biblical Hebrew does not grammaticalize for any definition of aspect that I know of. At least not in the different conjugations of yiqtol verses qatal.

The question of duration is a red herring, because all action, no matter how brief, has duration. There are too many qatals that refer to action to make duration a factor.

Do other definitions of aspect fit the grammaticalization that we see?


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.


Unless Randall has an idiosyncratic definition of completed/incomplete, this too does not fit.

Genesis 1:3 "and there was light (light came into existence)" yiqtol. Unless one subscribes to the theological position that God is continuously creating light, this is a one-time, finished event. This is a completed action, yet yiqtol.

Exodus 3:7 "I surely see the humiliation of my people in Egypt and I hear their outcry because of those who treat them harshly and I know their pain." three qatals referring to incomplete, durative, continuing action at the time the statement was made.

There are many, many more similar examples throughout Tanakh, which is why I understand that qatal/yiqtol do not grammaticalize for aspect either.


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli


I would not be surprised if a graduate student were to do the same statistical analysis as you did for your dissertation, but instead of focusing on tense as you did, focus on aspect, that he would find that aspect is not grammaticalized just as tense is not grammaticalized.

Karl W. Randolph.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page