Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Karl,


I do not want to continue this discussion. But this is my last 
attempt to explain "aspect" as I understand the term.

I start with an example from lexical semantics. Lexical meaning of a 
Hebrew word is not found in Hebrew-English lexicons, but in the mind 
of people who spoke Hebrew. The letters of a written word  or the 
sounds of a word do not have any meaning. But they signal a concept 
in the minds of native speakers. This concept is rather broad; it has 
a rather clear nucleus, but becomes more fuzzy toward the edges.

Take for example the Hebrew word NP$ (soul). In the Tanakh it may 
denote people, animals, and even carcasses. It may also signal 
abstract properties, such as life, or even the right to live as a 
being. All these references and senses, and several more, were 
included in the concept NP$ in the minds of the native speakers. When 
NP$ was used in a clause, the word COULD express all these references 
and senses. But the author wanted to make only one of them visible 
for his audience. In order to achieve this, he formed his context. 
The context does not generate any new lexical meaning, but it makes 
visible a part of the meaning potential of each word. For example, in 
Genesis 1:20, the context shows that NP$ refers to sea creatures. All 
the other possible references and meanings are not visible.

A clause expresses action(s) or state(s). The principal part of the 
clause is the verb, and a verb has a great meaning potential. When an 
author chooses a verb, he considers  its lexical meaning. The concept 
signaled by a verb has a potential of senses, and the author uses the 
context to make visible one sense of this potential; all the others 
are kept invisible. The author wants to show the reader when the 
action occurred, past, present, or future, and in Hebrew, it is the 
context that makes visible one temporal references and keeps the 
others invisible. If the action occurred in the past, objectively 
speaking, the action is completed. But the author may want to stress 
a certain part of the action in the eyes of the reader. For example, 
he may want to make visible for the reader that an action in the past 
started at a certain point and continued. Or he may want to make 
visible that an action was attempted, but not carried through. Which 
linguistic means did a Hebrew writer have to achieve this?  Please 
look at 1) and 2) below:

1) Exodus 33:4 NIV: "When the people heard (WAYYIQTOL) these 
distressing words, they began to mourn (WAYYIQTOL)."

 The English translation of 1) makes visible an ingressive event: The 
starting point, and a part of the continuation of the action is made 
visible. The event is past and it was completed, but the end of this 
past event is not made visible for the reader. In English, the 
linguistic tools used, is the lexical meaning of "began" and an 
infinitive. In Hebrew, only one finite verb is used. The core of the 
lexical meaning of )BL is "mourn," and, as mentioned,  the context 
shows that the action was completed at the time of writing. The tool 
used to make the ingressive meaning visible, is the imperfective 
WAYYIQTOL. This shows that that aspect has nothing to do with the 
action itself; aspect does not contribute anything the meaning of the 
objective action(s). But aspect is a subjective property that is used 
to make one part of (or the whole) action  visible. If we take "time" 
into our discussion, the aspect tells us nothing about the temporal 
reference of the actions (past, present, or future). But in 1), the 
aspect makes visible a part of the event time (event time=the time 
from the beginning to the end of the event), namely, the beginning 
and a small part of the action. Moreover, the aspect makes visible 
the details of the actions during this time, namely, a continuation 
of mourning.

2) " Kings 6:4 NIV: "And they went (WAYYIQTOL) with him. They went 
(WAYYIQTOL) to the Jordan, and began to cut down (WAYYIQTOL)  trees."

This example is similar to the one above. To make the beginning and a 
small part of the cutting action in this completed event, visible, 
the imperfective WAYYIQTOL is used.

In 3) and 4) below, we see a typical imperfective situation: an event 
occurs inside a state.

3) "While Tim was sleeping, Ann arrived."

4) Genesis 2:21NIV: "and while he was sleeping (WAYYIQTOL), he took 
one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh."

Example 3) is a typical English example of an imperfective situation. 
The present participle makes visible a part of the state of sleeping 
after the beginning and before the end, and neither beginning nor end 
is made visible. Example 4) is similar: A part of Adam's sleep is 
made visible, but not the beginning and end. An imperfective 
WWAYYIQTOL is used to make a part of a state visible, while keeping 
the beginning and end invisible.

The tools to make conative events visible, is the lexical meaning of 
the verb, the imperfective aspect, and our knowledge of the world 
(the context shows that the event was only attempted.

Best regards,

Rolf Furuli



> Rolf:
>
> On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 11:31 PM, Rolf Furuli 
> <<mailto:furuli AT online.no>furuli AT online.no> wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> I think the meaning was fleshed out, clarified in the subcategories 
> linked to from the main definition.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
> As I understand it, this gives the same meaning as I meant with my 
> reference to the time line.
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> This definition I find a little bit vague.
>
> However, you do agree that 'aspect' refers to time, just that it is 
> a different measurement of time than tense.