Gday Rolf,
See below:
As for the statement that "One Hebrew verb (the imperfective WAYYIQTOL)
is used to convey the force (an action + a resultant state) which only
can be expressed in English by the use of two verbs", the same applies.
It is only "imperfective" aspect because you have given a different
definition. Most wayyiqtols are prima facie perfective to most of the
rest of us. My feeling it is that you should move away from using the
aspectual terminology of "(im)perfective" aspect, because you operate
with you own definitions. You should create your own labels because your
definitions have moved considerably from agreed meanings. When you use
"imperfective" you mean something entirely different from most of the
rest of us. This is incredibly confusing, and I feel that you are no
longer describing aspect.
Because we operate from different methodologies to begin with, I feel we
will never agree.
2. With "complete" vis-a-vis "completed" I'm simply trying to get away
from tying aspect to time - "completed" to me implied just that, a
completed action and hence one performed in the past.
RF
It is very fine to skip "completed," which entails time. But you have not
answered my question: What is a "complete" action?
Only that the action is conceptualised "completely": it has a beginning
and an end, without recourse to its internal makeup. This is the
conventionally agree definition, is it not? If (im)perfective does not
fit for BH, it does not mean that the definitions of aspect need to be
redefined to suit. It may just mean, as I would argue, that the picture
is complex, as tense is starting to figure within the verbal system as
well.
By the way, when is your article in ZDMG scheduled for publication? I
checked the latest issue last week and it still didn't appear.
Regards,
David Kummerow.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.