Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Dear Rolf:

On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 8:53 AM, Rolf Furuli <rolf.furuli AT sf-nett.no> wrote:

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.

Wrong! Aspect is one thing in all aspectual languages, namely a measurement of time. True, there are many different subsets to measurement of time, and not all languages share the same subsets to the measurement of time, but in all aspectual languages we talk about a measurement of time.

Whereas tense refers to the locus of time in relation to the speaker—past, present and future—aspect refers to questions such as the length of time, beginning, ending, or not considered at all.

 

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?

Once it is clear that aspect refers to time, then this definition is clear. E.g. the sentence:

“I lived in Norway”

is perfective aspect, in that it simply takes the event as a whole, without referencing how long, whether continuous, repeated, or any other such “inner structure” measurement of time.

 

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?

Once it is accepted that aspect is a measurement of time, the “inner structure” of the measurement of time would be How long? Continuous? Starting? Ending? Repeated? and similar measurements. Imperfective aspect addresses these questions, perfective aspect merely takes the action as a whole.

These are the definitions of aspect that I’ve been taught in all languages I’ve studied that have aspect.

As a lexicographer myself, I can appreciate the difficulties that the SIL writers had when writing these glosses, when they tried to be as short as possible, yet give an accurate definition. I think the gloss for “imperfective” aspect could have been clearer, but it would have been much longer as well.

“I lived in Norway for a year.” addresses both the tense (simple past) and duration (“inner structure” of the time, how long?).

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.

There is a norm.

There are two main measurements of time—tense and aspect.

Tense is broken down into three main measurements—past, present and future, plus subsets of these and fuzzinesses.

Aspect is broken down into two main measurements—perfective and imperfective aspects.

Perfective aspect looks at the action as a whole.

Imperfective aspect has many subsets, not all languages share all subsets.

But all of these are measurements of time. 

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.

Why use “close-up view” and “distant view” when merely using “imperfective” and “perfective” aspects would communicate?

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.

Why not just use the standard terms within “aspect”? This is so idiosyncratic a use of terminology that it’s hard to follow along.

No study of any of the Semitic languages have have used the three mentioned  universal units as parameters.

What three universal units to be used as parameters? It may be clear in your mind, but not clear to me, and I suspect not clear to most of the people on this list.

 

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.

It is messages like this one that make me wonder if you really understand what is aspect as the term is used in linguistics.

I came to a study of Biblical Hebrew, first being taught that it conjugated for tense, with “tense” being defined the same way as the SiL gloss. I agree with your study that Biblical Hebrew does not conjugate for tense.

I was also taught a second option, that Biblical Hebrew might conjugate for aspect, with “aspect” being defined the same way as the SIL definition, though using a couple of pages or more for the definition so that there should be no misunderstanding. I really tried to fit Biblical Hebrew into this aspect box, but it just doesn’t fit. Had I kept a record of all my attempts, I probably could have written a dissertation on why Biblical Hebrew is aspectless.

For some reason, most linguists insist that Biblical lHebrew conjugation must conjugate for some measurement of time. If not tense, then aspect. That’s starting from a Euro-centric view because all European languages that I know of conjugate for time measurements.

My conclusions were arrived at as a result of my studies, in spite of what I was taught.

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.

The first step would be understanding the terms you use. 

Best regards,


Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway

Karl W. Randolph.