absolute is
the narrative verb, but that does not make it perfective or preterit.
> I respect your disagreement with me. In this case I endorse the
Words of
> Waltke/O´Connor p. 460 "How can forms, each of which "represent" all
three
> English major tenses have a primarily temporal value?"
>
>
Yes, but the same question can be levelled at the aspectual view: how
can forms that have a primarily temporal value represent both aspects?
RF:
As Dahl knows, Modern Burmese does not have grammaticalized tenses, but
those speaking it
are just as much concerned with past, present, and future time as we are.
Therefore, they have ways to express this by other means than by the use
of
tenses. I would argue that the same is true in classical Hebrew, and
Hebrew
aspects together with the other parts of the clauses are excellent tools
to
express time.
DK:
Your answer is to modify the definition of aspect (and also to equate
wayyiqtol with (we)yiqtol and all the other necessary things (eg the
hypthesis regarding way-) in order to acheive this). The reason in my
view is that the prototypical tense and aspectual values of a particular
verb can be neutralised in certain constructions or is constructionally
dependent (I can provide a bit of evidence when I find a bit more time
if you like).
RF:
I welcome evidence in order to understand what you mean by
"neutralization".
For example, in hypothetical conditional clauses in English verbs can be
used differently from their use in main clauses, but I would not say that
the tense is neutralized. The verb forms "went" and "came" are preterits
in
any clause.
RF:
While the very general distinction complete(d)/incomplete often is usedin
connection with aspect, there is very much confusion as to what aspect
actually is. L. J. Brinton (1988) "The Development of English Aspectual
Systems Aspectualizers and Post-verbal Particles" p. 5 lists seven
different
kinds of aspects under the heading "Confusion of sspect terminology". Then
he lists twenty-five different terms that have been conected with these
aspects.
Dahl has lectured in Oslo, and I have discussed aspect with him. That he
asked linguists in different languages how particular concepts he
associated
with aspect worked in their languages does not prove that aspect is the
same
in all aspectual languages. The concepts "reference time" and "event time"
that I use represent the "deep structures" of aspect, to borrow a term
from
Chomsky. These parameters can be used to analyze the imperfective and
perfective aspects in any aspectual language. So I think that "aspect" is
the right term to describe finite verbs in classical Hebrew.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.