Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

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.