Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Rolf:

Thanks for the long answer. There are some things that I question.

On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 3:13 AM, Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no> wrote:

> Dear Karl,
>
> In the linguistic literature, there are twenty or thirty different
> definitions of aspect.


All the definitions of aspect that I have seen still relate to time
measurements, just not specifically to tense.


> 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.


That is true of a study of any language, not just of a dead language.


> 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.
>

This last sentence can be understood in more than one way, because of the
different definitions of “aspect”.

I personally think that the study of Biblical Hebrew has been held back
because researchers started with certain pre-suppositions of what
conjugations should stand for, then try to pound their square pegs into
round holes, i.e. try to make their understanding of the conjugations fit
the text, instead of the other way around. That would be as true for aspect
as for tense.

>
> 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.
>

No, that is not true. While an individual knock may be semelfactive, to
refer to a person knocking on a door, or the sound on knocking, it may also
refer to multiple individual knocks collected into a series that is
durative.

>
> 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.


It is still aspectual in that, with rare exceptions, a person who knocks at
a door does so with repeated knocks, not just one.


> 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.


True.


> 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).


Not in English, as it can be open ended, i.e. referring to repeated actions
that are not completed. We need more context to say definitely that this is
a perfective aspect of completed action.


>  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.
>

As in example 3), we need more context.

>
> 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 7) is perfective, and we learn that the work was completed.


Again, as in example 3), context can make it imperfective and continuing
through the present.


> Example 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.
>

The tense is past, but that it refers to a durative event, therefore
imperfective.

>
> Example 10) 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.
>
> 7) Peter has worked.
>
> 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.


This is the problem connected with your frequent English examples, that they
often do not map accurately onto Biblical Hebrew. Rather they are often
irrelevant.


> But the examples show that also English aspects make something visible and
> other things invisible.


How is that? As far as I can see, aspect adds detail to add to that given by
tense. So how does it make 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."
>
> …
>
> 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")
>

How about “in the day I caused to be struck down all the first born in
Egypt”? This is a perfective aspect expressed by the context of a completed
action.

What I point to is that the aspect is carried by the context, not the
conjugation of the verb. The same with tense.

>
> 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,


Not at all, it is an action. One must act to know. Knowledge is acquired
through other actions, but it is still an action in itself, an action in
that it acknowledges that the other actions imparted knowledge.


> 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.


I don’t see this distinction carried out by the Biblical Hebrew conjugation
system. Nor for any system. Aspect is but one detail among many to build up
a total picture.


>  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.
>

As I read the above, I understand that you make the assumption that the
qatal encodes for perfective aspect, while the yiqtol for imperfective
aspect. I read first for context and meaning, and I understand both in this
verse as referring to ongoing, incomplete action at the time the statement
was made, therefore the context indicates imperfective aspect. Therefore my
conclusion based on this as well as many other verses, is that qatal and
yiqtol do not encode for aspect.

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


I am looking at the context, and the context indicates that this example is
of the imperfective aspect. Again, the aspect is indicated by the context,
not the verbal conjugation.

>
> …
> Best regards,
>
> Rolf Furuli
>
> Karl W. Randolph.