Karl,
My definition of aspect is as I said it: it is how an action is presented to the reader.
It doesn't have to do with the nature of the action, but rather how it should be viewed. It seems to me you're attaching aspect to the nature of the action, which is actually Aktionsart, not aspect.
Your claim about the lack of change in aspect between the qatal and yiqtol in Prov 31 makes little sense to me.
The text uses different verbs, and therefore there is a change, like it or not. The question is what the nature of this change is. Since you're actually thinking of Aktionsart, rather than aspect, you see no change because the nature of the actions does not appear to change.
I could agree with that. But as I said, this is not aspect, which is a different view of the action. To claim there is no change in aspect is to say that the text does not use different verb forms—in essence, it's a denial of the data.
What you make of the data, is a different issue. As I mentioned, my view is that it has to do with definiteness, proximity, and complexity.
The prior question, therefore, is whether Hebrew verbs are marked for Aktionsart or aspect, or even both. I would argue for aspect as having greater explanatory power.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.