Dear Bryan,
In order to give an adequate answer I need to point out some basic weaknesses in peoples' dealing with aspects. I have already claimed that a basic weakness in modern studies which argue that Semitic verbs represent tenses, is the lack of systematic distinction between past reference and past tense (and future as well). There is a similar basic weakness in studies which argue that Semitic verbs represent aspects, namely the lack of analysis of the concept "aspect". Very often, all that is done, is to use the vague and wrong definition of B. Comrie (He confuses Aktionsart and aspect), and this often leads to the view that the perfective and imperfective aspects are mutually exclusive.
...
The last sentence does not indicate that there is linguistic anarchy in Hebrew, but rather that the aspects are not mutually exclusive, and that there are several areas where both aspects can be used without any distinction in meaning. It is the linguistic conventions that give meaning to the use of verbs. We can illustrate the case with the active participle and infinitive construct. These two forms have different meanings and different uses, but they are not mutually exclusive. Occasionally, therefore, an infinitive is used where we expect a participle, vice versa. But normally linguistic convention causes an orderly use of both.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.