Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Dear Daniel,

I think it is important to find the smallest units in a language and discuss 
these; I also think it is important to distinguish between units with 
different nature.

I treat Aktionsart is an objective property which is connected with the 
lexical nature of a word.

Aktionsart properties can be durative, dynamic, telic, semelfactive etc. Some 
of these represent semantic meanig and can never be cancelled. For example, 
verbs marked for durativity, dynamicity, and tekicity can never loose these 
properties. The verb $IR (sing) is durative and dynamic (change), and 
regardless of the conjugations  used, the verb will always be durative and 
dynamic.

Aspekt is a subjective property; it can be compared with peepholes, through 
which actions can be viewed. Both the perfective and the imperfective aspect 
can be used for any event, depending on which part of the event the speaker 
or writer wants to make visible for the reader or the listener.  Aktionsart 
and aspect must be strictly separated. Therefore, when some textbooks use the 
word "durative," which is an Aktionsart property, with reference to aspect, 
that creates confusion.

Procedural traits have a lexical component, but they may also need other 
parts of speech. Please look at the following examples taken from Carlota 
Smith "The Parameter of Aspect":

State: know French
Activity: laugh
Semelfactive: knock
Accomplishment: climb a tree
Achievement: cure the patient

In order to distinguish between the objective Aktionsart based on lexical 
meaning, the subjective aspect, based on how a situation is viewed, and 
Procedural traits (also called Situation aspect), based on lexical meaning 
and other parts of the clause, I use the three different designations. Some 
scholars use the term Aktionsart in a broader sense than I do, thus including 
Procedural traits (Viewpoint aspect). But I prefer to distinguish between the 
two. The point is not what we call a particular part of speech, but that we 
define our terms clearly.

What is important for studies of the Hebrew verb is aspect (Viewpoint 
aspect). But when clauses are analysed, we must consider both Aktionsart and 
procedural traits.




Best regards,


Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway





Tirsdag 3. September 2013 11:06 CEST skrev Daniel Lundsgaard Skovenborg 
<waldeinburg AT yahoo.com>:

> Hi,
>
> Jumping into a discussion in B-Hebrew and having an good overview of what 
> have been said seems impossible, so if the following is totally irrelevant, 
> I apologize:
> Based on the examples you give (activities, achievements etc.) I think that 
> the "situation aspects" or "procedural traits" is what is normally called 
> "predicational aspect" or "lexical aspect" (or aktionsart, I thought, but 
> Routledge Encyclopedia of Linguistics claims this is a mistake). This is a 
> lexical-semantic category, so what is it doing in a discussion of verb 
> forms?
>
> Regards,
> Daniel Lundsgaard Skovenborg
>
>
>
>
>
> >________________________________
> > From: Rolf <rolf.furuli AT sf-nett.no>
> >To: B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> >Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 10:06 AM
> >Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] verb form
> >
> >
> >Dear Nir,
> >
> >You should have read my dissertation before you tell the list-members what 
> >I mean and what I have done.
> >
> >> in order to show that BH does not consider time as verb form parameter, 
> >> rolf
> >> defines time in a very narrow and non-compromising sense, imposed by some
> >> theories. this, of course, is the wrong direction: in an empirical 
> >> science, it
> >> is fact which determines theory. BH indeed uses time in more
> >> ways than he envisages.
> >
> >> of course, in spite of rolf's opinion, almost everybody
> >> agrees that BH uses time as an important determinant of
> >> the verb form. however, not in the same way english does, for example. or
> >> chinese. these diferences should be made precise.
> >
> >I never "define time," but I define the concept "tense." Here I follow 
> >Comrie's definition, namely, that tense "is grammaticalized location in 
> >time." For example, this mens that if a language has tenses, we can see a 
> >uniform use of some verb forms: Some forms are uniformely used with past 
> >reference, and other forms are used with future reference.
> >When we find that all verb forms in a particular language can have past, 
> >present and future reference, that language does not have tenses. I have 
> >already mentioned that I have found 997 WAYYIQTOLs with non-past reference 
> >and 956 QATALs with future reference. The only way to nullify my 
> >conclusion that these examples show that Hebrew does not have tenses, is 
> >to show that the mentioned WAYYIQTOLs and QATALs occur in strange 
> >contexts. But that is not true; the examples occur both in poetic and 
> >prose texts.
> >
> >I mentioned in my post to Kimmo that the best example of a uniform use of 
> >verb forms of which i know, is Greek imperfect. If anyone can give me an 
> >example of a non-past use of Greek imperfect, please do that off-list.
> >
> >Here I have two important questions for you: Is there a language in the 
> >world where the semantic meaning of verb tenses is different in poetic and 
> >prose texts? What is your evidence that the semantic meaning of Hebrew 
> >verbs are different in poetic and prose texts?
> >
> >
> >> aspect, too, is divided under most theories into viewpoint aspect and
> >> situation aspect. for some reason, in the BH context the
> >> perfect(ive)/imperfect(ive) division is called by many "aspect", 
> >> ignoring the
> >> other half, i.e. the distinction between (in first approximation, see 
> >> wendler,
> >> smith etc) state and event.
> >>
> >> so, what rolf calls "aspect" is really only "half aspect".
> >> where is the other half?
> >
> >Your statement above leads to confusion. You refer to Carlota Smith. She 
> >uses the terminology "viewpoint aspect" for perfectivity and 
> >imperfectivity, and what she calls "neutral viewpoints." She uses 
> >"situation aspects" with reference to the Vendlerian concepts states, 
> >activities, achievements, accomplishments, and semelfactives.  In my 
> >dissertation I use all the Vendlerian concepts, but I subsume them under 
> >the name "procedural traits" and not "situation aspect." The important 
> >thing is not the term used, but that each term is clearly defined. So I do 
> >not use "half aspect." 
> >
> >I downloaded your manuscript. The basic weakness in my view is that you do 
> >not have clear definitions of your terms. For example, you use the term 
> >"gnomic" in a much wider sense than usual. Therefore, your interpretations 
> >including "gnomic" cannot be tested.  A few comments to your 
> >"all-propositions" in a) and b).
> >
> >> a) wayiqtols and weqatals describe events and not states.
> >> unless the reason for the waw-prefix is SYNTACTIC (i.e. there was no
> >> alternative).
> >
> >Your words  "there was no alternative" are very interesting, because they 
> >can be applied to the  WAYYIQTOLs used of events in narrative texts as 
> >well.  In a narrative text, the reference is past, and one event follows 
> >the other. So there is no alternative to the use of the WAW-prefix 
> >(expressed as WAY because of ohonological rules); thus, the WAY-prefix is 
> >syntactically conditioned. This means that the verb form in each case is 
> >YIQTOL, but because of syntactical requirements, the YIQTOL has a 
> >WAY-prefix.
> >
> >>
> >> b) all wayiqtols and weqatals have the value "relative future",
> >> compared with their event predecessor verb form. with the same caveat.
> >
> >All-propositions are notoriously dangerous. What is "relative future"? In 
> >Table 6.2 in my dissertation there are 26 examples where the time of the 
> >WAYYIQTOL is similar with the time before (there are more examples as 
> >well).
> >
> >Examples:
> >
> >1 Samuel 1:17 "answered and said."
> >2 Kings 18:28 "stood and called," "spoke and said."
> >1 chronicles 29:22 "ate and drank."
> >
> >Some examples OF WAQATAL with the same time reference:
> >
> >Jeremiah 50: 22 "will stumble" (WAQATAL)  and "will fall" (WEQATAL); "will 
> >kindle a fire" (WEQATAL) "will consume" (WEQATAL.
> >Jeremiah 51:8  "will fall (QATAL) and "will be broken" (WEQATAL)
> >Jeremiah 51:44 "will punish (WEQATAL) and "will spew out" (WEQATAL)
> >
> >
> >Why not apply your theories to Jeremiah, chapters 50 and 51.  In 50, there 
> >are 32 QATALs with future reference. There are also 17 WEQATALs, 50 
> >YIQTOLs and 2 WAYYIQTOLs with future reference. In 51, there are 27 QATALs 
> >with future reference. There are also 38 WEQATALS, 32 YIQTOLs, 2 
> >WEYIQTOLS,  and 4 WAYYIQYOLs with future reference. How shall we explain 
> >all these different forms with future reference? Does any of them 
> >represent tense?
> >
> >
> >Best regards,
> >
> >
> >
> >Rolf Furuli
> >Stavern
> >Norway
> > 
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> nir cohen
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> b-hebrew mailing list
> >> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> >> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >b-hebrew mailing list
> >b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> >http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> >
> >
> >