Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Was: verb form - Proverbs 31:10-31— definition of aspect

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Rolf Furuli" <rolf.furuli AT sf-nett.no>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Was: verb form - Proverbs 31:10-31— definition of aspect
  • Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 17:53:22 +0200

Dear Karl,

Your question is very important, because it illustrates the enormous amount
of arbitrariness that exist in studies of Hebrew verbs. L.J. Brinton, "The
Development of English Aspectual systems" (1988) presents more than twenty
different definitions of aspect. Different scholars use different definitions
of tense and aspect. Some of these definitions are vague, and often the exact
meaning of the terms used are not communicated to the reader. For example, it
is impossible to evaluate Nir's study before he clearly tells us what he
means by tense and aspect.

Let us now take a look at the SIL definitions:

1) Perfective aspect is an aspect that expresses a temporal view of an event
or state as a simple whole, apart from the consideration of the internal
structure of the time in which it occurs.

2) Imperfective aspect is an aspect that expresses an event or state, with
respect to its internal structure, instead of expressing it as a simple whole.

3) Inchoative aspect is an aspect that expresses the beginning of an event or
state

4) Cessative aspect is aspect that expresses the cessation of an event or
state.

Four different kinds of aspects are mentioned. I have the following critical
remarks:
A. It seems that aspect is one thing in all aspectual languages, which
definitely is not true.
B. The definitions 3) and 4) are clear: the focus is on the beginning and end
C. The definition 1) is unclear. Actually what does "temporal view" refer to?
D. The definition 2) is unclear as well. What is the "internal structure" of
an event or state? This is particularly important in connection with the term
"state," because per definition, every part of a state is similar to the
state as a whole; it is simply a situation that holds without any inner
structure. So what is the "inner structure" of a state?

Your term "idiosyncratic" must be seen in relation to a norm. But when there
are more than twenty terms ("definitions") used in connection with aspects,
where is the norm? Moreover, the view of some that students of Hebrew verbs
should only use standard terms is a fallacy; it may prevent progress. The
requirement should be that when we use a new term or a new way of explaining
something, we should use clear and exact definitions, so the readers can
understand what we mean.

Let us now look at the minute parts of language that are my parameters. The
term "deictic center" (C) is universal. It refers to the vantage point from
which an event is viewed. In most cases C is the present moment, but it can
also refer to a point in the past or future. Event time (ET) is the time of
an event or state from beginning to the end. In some languages, such as
English, it is required that ET is seen in relation to C, which means that ET
is placed before C, after C, or contemporanous with C. But it is very
important to realize that ET in itself is non-deictic, which means that when
we study ET, we should detach it from C, and study it in its own right.
Reference time is the small or big part of ET that is focused upon, that the
author wants to make visible for the readers or listeners. Please look at 5)
and 6) below. In both 5) and 6), ET is the time from the beginning to the end
of Peter's walk. In 5), RT intersects ET at the nucleus. What is made visible
is a part of the walking even in the middle. The walking event had a
beginning and an end, but neither of these are made visible. In 6) RT
intersects ET at the coda. What is made visible is the end of the event. The
event had a beginning and occurred over a time, but neither of these are made
visible.

5) Peter was walking in the garden.

6) Peter has walked in the garden.

The parameters C, ET, and RS can be used in the study of any language,
because they are not language specific but universal. In English, there are
only two options for the aspects. The imperfective aspect, expressed by the
participle makes visible continuous action (or a state that holds) in the
middle of ET, before its beginning and end. The perfective aspect, expressed
by perfect, makes visible the end of ET (and possibly the resultant state).
In other languages, there are many more options for each aspect. We can
analyze at which point RT intersects ET (before the beginning-conative; at
the beginning and a part of the action-ingressive; in the
middle-pregressive; immediately before the end-egressive; including the end
and a part of the resultant state-resultative). We can also analyze the
breadth of the intersection of ET by RS (is it small; is it greater; does it
include all ET from beginning to end). We can also consider the quality of
the intersection, whether details of continuous action are made visible, or
whether the event is seen as from a distance (not factually but conceptually
speaking).

I have analyzed all the verbs of the Tanakh by the help of these three
parameters. The result of the study, which took ten years, is that tense is
nonexistent in Hebrew, and that Hebrew has two aspects. My definition of
these two aspects on the basis of this study is as follows:

The imperfective aspect is a close-up view of a small section of the event
where progressive action is made visible. The perfective aspect is a view, as
if from some distance, of a great part, or of the whole event, where
progressive action is not made visible.

The following differences and similarities between the two aspects can be
seen:

1. Both aspects can make a part of the situation visible, and the perfective
aspect can make the whole visible.

2. The imperfective aspect makes details visible, bot not so the perfective
one.

3. The imperfective aspect makes a small part visible, while the perfective
one makes a greater part visible.

4. The imperfective aspect can include either the beginning or the end; the
perfective aspect can include both beginning and end.

5. Both aspects can be bounded and unbounded.

6. The imperfective aspect can make visible a part before the beginning of an
event (conative situations), and a part of a resultant state (resultative
situations), but not so the perfective aspect.

No study of any of the Semitic languages have have used the three mentioned
universal units as parameters. Because I have used them, there is no wonder
that my results are different from other studies. The advantage of my
approach is that I have not arbitrarily chosen one of the twenty or more
aspect definitions before I started. But by the use of the three small
universal units I have been able to define Hebrew aspects and the
similarities and differences between these aspects. This means that my aspect
definitions were reached as A RESULT of my analyses of the Hebrew verbs, and
they were not chosen BEFORE my study started.

I do not say that my conclusions are the only correct ones, and that all
others are wrong. But I say that my parameters and my approach are very
different from other approaches to Hebrew verbs. So the study and its
results deserve to be considered by those who are interested in the verbal
system of Classical Hebrew.


Best regards,


Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway






Onsdag 11. September 2013 13:30 CEST skrev K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>:

> Dear Rolf:
>
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 3:58 AM, Rolf Furuli <rolf.furuli AT sf-nett.no> wrote:
>
> > … . By analyzing all the verbs of the Tanakh by these three parameters, I
> > found that tense is not grammaticalized in Hebrew; and I found that
> > Hebrew has aspects and how these aspects differ from the aspects in
> > English and other aspectual languages.
>
>
> Oh oh, it looks like you are using an idiosyncratic definition for “aspect”
> that no one else uses. Would you care to explain yourself?
>
> I use the definition from SIL “Aspect is a grammatical category associated
> with
> verbs<http://www-01.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOflinguisticTerms/WhatIsAVerbLinguistics.htm>
> that
> expresses a temporal view of the event or state expressed by the verb.”
> which leads me to the conclusion that Biblical Hebrew doesn’t conjugate for
> aspect.
>
> Isn’t it better to invent a new term for an observed phenomena than to
> repurpose an established term in an idiosyncratic way? By doing that,>
> wouldn’t you avoid misunderstanding?
>
> Karl W. Randolph.







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page