Dear Karl,
Your question is very important, because it illustrates the enormous amount of arbitrariness that exist in studies of Hebrew verbs. L.J. Brinton, "The Development of English Aspectual systems" (1988) presents more than twenty different definitions of aspect. Different scholars use different definitions of tense and aspect. Some of these definitions are vague, and often the exact meaning of the terms used are not communicated to the reader. For example, it is impossible to evaluate Nir's study before he clearly tells us what he means by tense and aspect.
Let us now take a look at the SIL definitions:
1) Perfective aspect is an aspect that expresses a temporal view of an event or state as a simple whole, apart from the consideration of the internal structure of the time in which it occurs.
2) Imperfective aspect is an aspect that expresses an event or state, with respect to its internal structure, instead of expressing it as a simple whole.
3) Inchoative aspect is an aspect that expresses the beginning of an event or state
4) Cessative aspect is aspect that expresses the cessation of an event or state.
Four different kinds of aspects are mentioned. I have the following critical remarks:
A. It seems that aspect is one thing in all aspectual languages, which definitely is not true.
B. The definitions 3) and 4) are clear: the focus is on the beginning and end
C. The definition 1) is unclear. Actually what does "temporal view" refer to?
D. The definition 2) is unclear as well. What is the "internal structure" of an event or state? This is particularly important in connection with the term "state," because per definition, every part of a state is similar to the state as a whole; it is simply a situation that holds without any inner structure. So what is the "inner structure" of a state?
Your term "idiosyncratic" must be seen in relation to a norm. But when there are more than twenty terms ("definitions") used in connection with aspects, where is the norm? Moreover, the view of some that students of Hebrew verbs should only use standard terms is a fallacy; it may prevent progress. The requirement should be that when we use a new term or a new way of explaining something, we should use clear and exact definitions, so the readers can understand what we mean.
Let us now look at the minute parts of language that are my parameters. The term "deictic center" (C) is universal. It refers to the vantage point from which an event is viewed. In most cases C is the present moment, but it can also refer to a point in the past or future. Event time (ET) is the time of an event or state from beginning to the end. In some languages, such as English, it is required that ET is seen in relation to C, which means that ET is placed before C, after C, or contemporanous with C. But it is very important to realize that ET in itself is non-deictic, which means that when we study ET, we should detach it from C, and study it in its own right. Reference time is the small or big part of ET that is focused upon, that the author wants to make visible for the readers or listeners. Please look at 5) and 6) below. In both 5) and 6), ET is the time from the beginning to the end of Peter's walk. In 5), RT intersects ET at the nucleus. What is made visible is a part of the walking even in the middle. The walking event had a beginning and an end, but neither of these are made visible. In 6) RT intersects ET at the coda. What is made visible is the end of the event. The event had a beginning and occurred over a time, but neither of these are made visible.
5) Peter was walking in the garden.
6) Peter has walked in the garden.
The parameters C, ET, and RS can be used in the study of any language, because they are not language specific but universal. In English, there are only two options for the aspects. The imperfective aspect, expressed by the participle makes visible continuous action (or a state that holds) in the middle of ET, before its beginning and end. The perfective aspect, expressed by perfect, makes visible the end of ET (and possibly the resultant state). In other languages, there are many more options for each aspect. We can analyze at which point RT intersects ET (before the beginning-conative; at the beginning and a part of the action-ingressive; in the middle-pregressive; immediately before the end-egressive; including the end and a part of the resultant state-resultative). We can also analyze the breadth of the intersection of ET by RS (is it small; is it greater; does it include all ET from beginning to end). We can also consider the quality of the intersection, whether details of continuous action are made visible, or whether the event is seen as from a distance (not factually but conceptually speaking).
I have analyzed all the verbs of the Tanakh by the help of these three parameters. The result of the study, which took ten years, is that tense is nonexistent in Hebrew, and that Hebrew has two aspects. My definition of these two aspects on the basis of this study is as follows:
The imperfective aspect is a close-up view of a small section of the event where progressive action is made visible. The perfective aspect is a view, as if from some distance, of a great part, or of the whole event, where progressive action is not made visible.
The following differences and similarities between the two aspects can be seen:
1. Both aspects can make a part of the situation visible, and the perfective aspect can make the whole visible.
2. The imperfective aspect makes details visible, bot not so the perfective one.
3. The imperfective aspect makes a small part visible, while the perfective one makes a greater part visible.
4. The imperfective aspect can include either the beginning or the end; the perfective aspect can include both beginning and end.
5. Both aspects can be bounded and unbounded.
6. The imperfective aspect can make visible a part before the beginning of an event (conative situations), and a part of a resultant state (resultative situations), but not so the perfective aspect.
No study of any of the Semitic languages have have used the three mentioned universal units as parameters.
Because I have used them, there is no wonder that my results are different from other studies. The advantage of my approach is that I have not arbitrarily chosen one of the twenty or more aspect definitions before I started. But by the use of the three small universal units I have been able to define Hebrew aspects and the similarities and differences between these aspects. This means that my aspect definitions were reached as A RESULT of my analyses of the Hebrew verbs, and they were not chosen BEFORE my study started.
I do not say that my conclusions are the only correct ones, and that all others are wrong. But I say that my parameters and my approach are very different from other approaches to Hebrew verbs. So the study and its results deserve to be considered by those who are interested in the verbal system of Classical Hebrew.
Best regards,
Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.