snip
Let me refer again to my earlier post:
Hopper gives the following example from Russian:
...Peasants returning from the city whipped (impfv.) their horses and rushed by (impfv.) in silence past these regualarly distributed figures with their highly felonious appearance. The soxoz managers and the authorities rumbled by (impfv.) on carts and demostrably showed (impfv.) the colonists their double-barrelled and sawed-off shotguns, while people on foot stopped (impfv.) at the bridge and waited (impfv.) for other travellers.
While I was around the colonists never misbehaved (impfv.) or bothered (impfv.) the travellers, but when I wasn't they allowed (impfv.) themselves some dirty tricks, so that soon Zadarov refused (pfv.) to take the revolver and demanded (pfv.) that I absolutely had to spend time out on the road. So I began (pfv.) to go out with every detachment, but still gave (impfv.) the revolver to Zadorov, so as not to deprive him of deserved pleasure.
Hopper's comment, "The habitual actions here do not come to an end with the event verbs 'refused', 'demanded', and 'began', but are thought of as on-going. The three perfective verbs, however, are sequenced among themselves, and in fact the morphological difference between perfective and imperfective is a clear signal that these, and only these, events are presented as sequenced, and that they are not sequenced with respect to the imperfective verbs."
p. 10 "Aspect Between Discourse and Grammar" from _Tense-Aspect: Between Semantics and Pragmatics_, ed. Hopper. Amsterdam/Phila.: John Benjamins, 1982.
You responded:
I am very sceptical to Russian examples used to illuminate classical Hebrew, because what is called the imperfective and perfective aspects in Russian are more like Aktionsart than aspects. For example, "habituality" is not an aspectual quality in my definition of Hebrew aspects, but is a function of aspect + Aktionsart +possibly context. Peter Kirk may have more to say about this, because he knows both Russian and Hebrew.
I think your response about Hopper's example may be making my point. Hopper's example shows that a perfective form may be used in Russian to communicate an embedded sequence in a context where one might predict a perfective form could not appear. It can appear because of some combination of Aktionsart and/or context. The basic perfective meaning of the form remains intact. The so-called perfective forms in his example do not prove that the Russian perfective form is not really perfective. We do not have to rewrite the Russian grammar books because of his example. Likewise, maybe your 998 non-past wayyiqtols do not prove that the wayyiqtol is not perfective.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.