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: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 19:45:45 +0100

Dear Karl,

It is a pleasure to discuss the Hebrew language with you, because you write in a civilized way (in contrast to some list members who attack persons and use a bad language, and to others who refuse to answer questions about the meaning of their parameters). You also write in a clear and understandable way.

You wrote:

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.

You should try to distinguish between the lexical meaning and Aktionsart of the verb and which part of the action that the author wants the reader to see. English aspects are very different from Hebrew ones, and therefore it is correct that English examples do not always match Hebrew examples. It is important to connect aspect with *verb forms* and not with the nature of the action. Please consider 1) and 2) again.

Both clauses indicate that for some time the work of Peter continued. Both clauses show that the work occurred in the past, relative to speech time, and we therefore know that the working period had a beginning and an end. But-and that is very important-in 1), a part in the middle of the working period is made visible and not the end, and in 2) the end, and not the action in progress is made visible. Please consider this carefully.

1) Peter has worked.

2) Peter was working.

In addition to the use of aspect, there are also other tools that can be used to make something visible or make something invisible. In an active clause, the agent is identical with the grammatical subject. If the author wants to make the agent invisible, a passive form can be used. Example 1) is active and 2) is passive, and in 2) the agent is not made visible. Randall and I disagree in most issues regarding Hebrew tense and aspect, but we agree that aspect is a subjective portrayal of the action (=a subjective way of making something visible and keep other things invisible).

3) Jacob gave his servant a gift.

4) Jacobs servant was given a gift.

I will give two more examples. In 5) we see a conative event, and what is made visible, is an attempt and not the action itself. The author makes this conative situation visible for the reader by the combination of the imperfective WAYYIQTOL and our knowledge of the world-we know that Reuben did not deliver Joseph.

Example 6) is ingressive, which means that what is made visible, is the beginning of the action and a small part of the following progressive action. Again, the author makes this visible by the help of the imperfective WAYYIQTOL and our knowledge of the world-we know that the temple was not finished in one year.

5) Genesis 37:21 "When Reuben heard (WAYYIQTOL) this, he tried to deliver (WAYYIQTOL) them out of their hands.

6) 1 Kings 6:1 "In the four hundred and eightieth after the Israelites came out of the land of Egypt... he began to build (WAYYIQTOL) the temple of YHWH,"

In my dissertation there are hundreds of examples of YIQTOLs and WAYYIQTOLs where different parts of the action is made visible.

To make something visible, and to keep the rest invisible is a subjective endeavor. The main factor here is the use of the perfective and imperfective aspect.

In Norwegian we have the saying: "What is obscurely expressed, is obscurely thought." When list-members use grammatical terms, even rejecting some of them in Hebrew, and they refuse to define their terms, the only conclusion I can draw, is that their terms cannot be defined in scientific terms, and that they simply do not know what they are talking about.


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli



Rolf:

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

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

Š

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.


Š
Best regards,

Rolf Furuli

Karl W. Randolph.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page