Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

 Dear Karl,


I have nothing to add to my last post except that I analyze the clause "He 
lived in Norway" as a tense (simple past) and not as an aspect.



Best regards,



Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway




Onsdag 11. September 2013 20:52 CEST skrev 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.