Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Karl,


The SIL definition of the  aspect is:

"Aspect is a grammatical category associated with 
verbs that expresses a temporal view of the event 
or state expressed by the verb."

I accept the definition, but it is so vague that 
it tells nothing. The same definition can be 
given for "tense."  A definition should help us 
to distinguish between the property being defined 
and other properties. Moreover, the definition is 
universal (not language-specific), and this means 
that it is supposed to fit any aspectual language.


Please look at the definitions I have given previously:

"TENSE represents deictic time, which means that 
it is the relationship between reference time and 
the deictic center (C).

The deictic center is in most cases speech time. 
An event whose reference time comes before (C) is 
past; when reference time comes after C, the 
event is future; when reference time coincides 
with C, the event is present.

The definition applies to languages that have grammaticalized tenses.


ASPECT represents non-deictic time, which means 
that the time of the aspect  is not seen in 
relation to a deictic center. Aspect is the 
relationship between event time and reference 
time.  In order to apply the definition, one must 
get a clear understanding of what "reference 
time" and "event time" are.

The advantages of these definitions are:

1)  A clear distinction is made between tense and aspect.

2) It is not assumed that aspect is the same in all aspectual languages.

3) Parameters are given that can be be used to 
see the real nature of aspect in any aspectual 
language.

Point 1) does not rule out that the same verb 
form can express both tense and aspect (e.g., 
Greek imperfect, which expresses both past tense 
and the imperfective aspect). Point 3) is 
particularly important, because, in English the 
aspects have only two kinds of expressions, but 
in Hebrew the aspects have  nine different 
expressions.

Another weakness of the SIL definitions is that 
of terminological confusion. SIL lists ten 
different kinds of aspect. However, six of these 
are not independent entities, but they are 
combinations of the imperfective aspect and the 
so-called Venlerian categories (state, activity, 
accomplishment, achievement, and a semelfactive 
event).  For example, SIL has the category 
"Iterative aspect," which is defined as "an 
aspect that expresses the repetition of an event 
or state." Please look at  examples a), b), c), 
and d) below.  In all of them we see the English 
imperfective aspect (the present participle). But 
only d) is iterative. The iterativity is caused 
by two factors, namely, by the imperfective 
aspect and a semelfactive (instantaneous) verb. 
Because two factors (one expressing aspect and 
the other expressing Aktionsart) must be combined 
for an iterative interpretation, it is confusing 
to classify this as "Iterative ASPECT." A better 
definition of d) would be "an iterative event 
cause by the imperfective aspect and a 
semelfactive verb."

a)  Peter  was walking in the garden. (ACTIVITY-durative and dynamic)

b)  Peter was building a house.  (ACCOMPLISHMENT-durative, dynamic, and telic)

c)  Peter was reaching the peak. (ACHIEVEMENT-dynamic and telic)

d) Peter was knocking at the door. 
(SEMELFACTIVE-dynamic /"knocking" is both 
dynamic and durative, but the "knock"-event 
itself is only dynamic/)



Regarding Jeremiah 38:9: Verbs in the indicative 
express actions and states in the real world. 
Verbs that are modal express actions and states 
in imagines worlds. We do not find any imagined 
world in Jeremiah 38:9. But Ebed-melech is 
concerned about the life of Jeremiah, and he 
tells the king that the prophet "is on the point 
of dying," or that "he will die" if the situation 
continues. This is a critical situation in the 
real world. It is no exaggeration  (hyperebole), 
because a person who has not eaten for a long 
time, is on the point of dying, and, if he does 
not get food, he will die.


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli





> Dear Rolf:
>
> While both you and I agree that the conjugation 
> of Hebrew verbs into qatal and yiqtol forms does 
> not indicate tense, as your statistics at the 
> bottom of your last message also indicate, I 
> don't see how you can maintain that the 
> conjugations grammaticalize for aspect.
>
> When I look at the definition for 'aspect' 
> within linguistics, such as at the 
> <http://sil.org>sil.org glossary of linguistics, 
> it refers to time. Whereas 'tense' refers to the 
> relationship of where the action occurs on the 
> time line from past to future in relation to the 
> subject, 'aspect' refers to the length along the 
> time line that an action takes up, and to a 
> lesser extent, whether or not the action is 
> ongoing, or has been completed. Thus 'aspect'. 
> like 'tense', is a time measurement. By 
> definition. Or does <http://sil.org>sil.org use 
> the wrong definitions?
>
> You have mentioned 'conative aspect' in an 
> earlier message. I don't see any relationship 
> between conation and time, neither tense nor 
> aspect. Is 'conative aspect' an oxymoron? While 
> 'conative' is not listed among linguistic terms 
> at <http://sil.org>sil.org, if it truly does 
> indicate a linguistic understanding, would it 
> not properly be a modality?
>
> In this verse, does not the use of a wayiqtol 
> indicate a modality, in this case subjunctive? 
> "Šthat he should die because of it (being thrown 
> into the pit)".
>
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Rolf Furuli 
> <<mailto:furuli AT online.no>furuli AT online.no> 
> wrote:
>
>
> Dear Carl,
>
> In my view, the hyperbolic claim regarding 
> Jeremiah 38:9 is an ad hoc explanation.
>
>
> I agree there. The reason, as I see it, is that 
> the student does not understand why it is 
> correct that there is a wayiqtol in that 
> position in that verse. Therefore he is making 
> what is essentially a wild guess as to why the 
> sentence is constructed the way it is.
>
>
> The reason for it is the view that the WAYYIQTOL 
> form is perfective, and a perfective verb 
> should not have an egressive force or refer to 
> the future. Therefore, when the map does not fit 
> the terrain, the terrain is wrong.  A WEQATAL 
> would be no problem, as Randall shows.
>
>
> A weqatal is wrong, as it is forcing Biblical 
> Hebrew grammar into an Indo-European 
> straitjacket.
>
>
> Š
> I have a list of 997 WAYYIQTOLs with non-past 
> reference, 965 QATALs with future reference, 
> 2,505 QATALs with present reference, 50 
> WEYIQTOLs with past reference, and 1,027 YIQTOLs 
> with past reference.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rolf Furuli
>
> Karl W. Randolph.