Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Rolf" <rolf.furuli AT sf-nett.no>]

Dear Isaac,

There are numerous discussions of tense and aspect in the archives. But in 
order to answer your question and as information for new members of the list, 
I will give a few points.

Tense is defined as "grammaticalization of location in time," which implies 
that the time reference is an intrinsic part of the form (semantic meaning) 
and not a function of the context (pragmatic meaning). The English forms 
"bought" and "walked" represent simple past; this is their intrinsic meaning. 
In hypothetical conditional clauses and in special contexts, these forms can 
be used in a non-past way, but not in ordinary contexts.

Aspect means different things to different people; L. J. Brinton (The 
Development of English Aspectual Systems, 1988) lists more than ten different 
definitions of aspect. Most of these definitions are vague and tell us little.

In order to avoid much of the confusion of the different definitions, I use 
three fundamental parameters (which have been used by linguists since 1949) 
to define both tense and aspect; deictic center (C), reference time (RT) and 
event time (ET). The deictic center is the vantage point from which an event 
is viewed; event time is the time from the beginning to the end of and event, 
and reference time is the portion of event time (small or great) that is made 
visible by the utterance.

I define tense as the relationship between reference time and the deictic 
center and aspect as the relationship between event time and reference time. 
Tense signals the position of the event in the past, present, and future, and 
aspect makes visible a part of the event and keeps the rest invisible. In 
English, one clause can express both tense and aspect. Examples 1) and 2) can 
illustrate the nature of the English aspects. In 1) ET is the time of the 
walking event from its beginning to its end;  RT is the sequence of in the 
middle of ET that is made visible, whereas the beginning and end of ET are 
invisible.
In 2) ET is the same as in 1). But only the end of ET is made visible. 
Semitic aspects are in several respects different from English aspects, 
because more parts of the ET than the middle part and the end can be made 
visible in Hebrew

1) John was walking from his office to his home.

2) John has walked from his office to his home.

After I analyzed the 80.000 verbs in the Tanakh, the DSS, the Inscriptions 
and Ben Sira in the light of C, ET, and RT,
my conclusion was that Classical Hebrew has no tenses (verb forms with an 
intrinsic past or future reference), because all verb forms can have past, 
present, and future reference. But Hebrew has aspects: YIQTOL, WAYYIQTOL, and 
WEYIQTOL represent the imperefective aspect, and QATAL and WEQATAL  represent 
the perfective aspect.

In order to use a good methodology, I both made a synchronic and diachronic 
study of the Hebrew texts. My conclusion is that whereas there are small 
differences in the use of verbs in the younger books compared with the older 
ones, the nature and use of the aspects are the same. In different languages 
we can see a grammaticalization process, which means that a particular form 
with different uses or different references, gradually loose many uses or 
references, until it only has a few or only one use or reference—it is fully 
grammaticalized. Several writers have claimed that such a grammaticalization 
process has been the case with the WAYYIQTOL form, which at last, in some 
writers' view have become a past tense, and in other writers' view have 
become the perfective aspect. My conclusion is that such a grammticalization 
process cannot be seen from the oldest to the younger books. The use of 
WAYYIQTOL and the other forms is the same in the whole Tanakh.


Best regards,




Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway



Søndag 12. Mai 2013 02:39 CEST skrev Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>:

> Some clear concrete examples as to what you mean by Hebrew tense and 
> aspect would very helpful.
>
> We have already mentioned here on several occasions that the Hebrew  > verb 
> is but a root plus personal pronouns for the actors involved in 
> the act alluded to. There are, otherwise, no special time markers in 
> Hebrew.
>
> It may all depend on the nature of the act and its circumstances. For  
> instance, the קפאו QAPU, from the act QAPA (related to קבע
> 'fixed', and גבע 'raised'), 'freeze, solidify', of Ex. 15:8, the -U
> are the waters, that are here at the receiving end of the act
> ––– it happened to them, whereas the שברו $ABRU of Jer. 5:5
> refers to the act שבר $ABAR, 'break', committed by perpetrator -U
> on another body.
>
> Another example. The commandment LO TI-RCAX is 'no you kill (another 
> person, ever)', whereas TE-RACAX is 'you kill (by another person,
> later)'.
>
> Isaac Fried, Boston University
>
> On May 10, 2013, at 1:50 AM, Rolf wrote:
>
> >  A common characteristic between the Semitic languages from the
> > second and first millennium BCE is that their verbs express aspects  > 
> > rather than tenses—all their finite forms can be used with past,
> > present, and future reference
>