Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Verbal Aspect

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
  • To: George Athas <George.Athas AT moore.edu.au>
  • Cc: "b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Verbal Aspect
  • Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 14:54:06 -0700

George:

On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 1:50 PM, George Athas <George.Athas AT moore.edu.au> wrote:
Karl,

My definition of aspect is as I said it: it is how an action is presented to the reader.

But this is not the definition of “aspect” that I was taught as a student, nor what is presented on the SIL definition. “Aspect” is defined within linguistics differently than how it’s used on the street (no surprise that professional lingo differs), and when I talk linguistics, I use linguistic’s argot (or at least try to).
 
It doesn't have to do with the nature of the action, but rather how it should be viewed. It seems to me you're attaching aspect to the nature of the action, which is actually Aktionsart, not aspect.

Have you considered making a neologism, or use another term, instead of “aspect” so people could recognize that you are talking about a different idea than aspect in linguistics? How about “presentation”?

Just like I now use the term “action” instead of “function” because “function” has a specific meaning in linguistics?

Your claim about the lack of change in aspect between the qatal and yiqtol in Prov 31 makes little sense to me.

According to the SIL definition, there’s none.

However, there is a difference in presentation.
 
The text uses different verbs, and therefore there is a change, like it or not. The question is what the nature of this change is. Since you're actually thinking of Aktionsart, rather than aspect, you see no change because the nature of the actions does not appear to change.

I just looked up “aktionsart” to make sure of my understanding, and it appears to me that you are using this term differently than defined.
 
I could agree with that. But as I said, this is not aspect, which is a different view of the action. To claim there is no change in aspect is to say that the text does not use different verb forms—in essence, it's a denial of the data.

Not at all. Rather it’s a claim that the different verb forms have different meaning than aspect, especially aspect as defined in linguistics (SIL).
 
What you make of the data, is a different issue. As I mentioned, my view is that it has to do with definiteness, proximity, and complexity.

And your view makes no sense to me, because I see no data to back it up. 

The prior question, therefore, is whether Hebrew verbs are marked for Aktionsart or aspect, or even both. I would argue for aspect as having greater explanatory power.

According to definition, “aktionsart” refers to aspect that is part of the definition of a term. For example, to glimpse has the time reference as part of the lexical meaning, namely for a short time. In contrast, to stare has looking for a long period. To look doesn’t have a time reference in its meaning.

According to definition, “aspect” is a time reference that tells the type of time. It’s not the same as tense, though often works together with tense. Aspect is presented through conjugation in some languages, syntax in others. It can apply to the majority of verbs that don’t have a time reference in the meaning of the verb.

In Proverbs 31:10–31, it’s the context that gives the same force as aspect, in this case, the imperfective aspect.

Cheers!

GEORGE ATHAS
Dean of Research,
Moore Theological College (moore.edu.au)
Sydney, Australia

The question here: do we make neologisms or repurpose other terms so that people recognize that we are talking about new ideas, or do we redefine terms that already have one definition that ends up confusing people?

Karl W. Randolph.



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page