Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

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.