On Saturday 27 November 2004 02:07, Rolf Furuli wrote:
Rolf,
[snip]
It is true that Indo-European scholars have imposed upon classical
Hebrew their definitions of aspect, but it is my impression that most
modern Israeli scholars have done exactly the same, not with aspect,
which they reject, but with tense. When you say that the
perfective/imperfective distinction work about half the time, you are
correct. But note that this is when you apply English aspectual
distinctions to classical Hebrew. And this is a cardinal error in
Hebrew studies, to assume that aspect is one and the same thing in all
aspectual languages, namely, the opposition incomplete/completed or
incomplete/complete! I am not aware of a singly scholarly study that
presents a different view.
Then you haven't read either my paper (Hebrew Studies 1994) or Galia Hatav's monograph, because we both take different views. Hers in particular addresses your questions about aspect, R-time, and all the rest. While I don't agree with her in all respects, I found her approach to be a real breath of fresh air, and was able to make some modifications of my own theory based on it.
snip
In any case, I heartily commend Galia Hatav's book to you as you continue your thought-provoking research.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.