Dear Karl,
The SIL definition of the aspect is:
"Aspect is a grammatical category associated with
verbs that expresses a temporal view of the event
or state expressed by the verb."
I accept the definition, but it is so vague that
it tells nothing. The same definition can be
given for "tense." A definition should help us
to distinguish between the property being defined
and other properties. Moreover, the definition is
universal (not language-specific), and this means
that it is supposed to fit any aspectual language.
Please look at the definitions I have given previously:
"TENSE represents deictic time, which means that
it is the relationship between reference time and
the deictic center (C).
The deictic center is in most cases speech time.
An event whose reference time comes before (C) is
past; when reference time comes after C, the
event is future; when reference time coincides
with C, the event is present.
The definition applies to languages that have grammaticalized tenses.
ASPECT represents non-deictic time, which means
that the time of the aspect is not seen in
relation to a deictic center. Aspect is the
relationship between event time and reference
time. In order to apply the definition, one must
get a clear understanding of what "reference
time" and "event time" are.
The advantages of these definitions are:
1) A clear distinction is made between tense and aspect.
2) It is not assumed that aspect is the same in all aspectual languages.
3) Parameters are given that can be be used to
see the real nature of aspect in any aspectual
language.
Point 1) does not rule out that the same verb
form can express both tense and aspect (e.g.,
Greek imperfect, which expresses both past tense
and the imperfective aspect). Point 3) is
particularly important, because, in English the
aspects have only two kinds of expressions, but
in Hebrew the aspects have nine different
expressions.
Another weakness of the SIL definitions is that
of terminological confusion. SIL lists ten
different kinds of aspect. However, six of these
are not independent entities, but they are
combinations of the imperfective aspect and the
so-called Venlerian categories (state, activity,
accomplishment, achievement, and a semelfactive
event). For example, SIL has the category
"Iterative aspect," which is defined as "an
aspect that expresses the repetition of an event
or state." Please look at examples a), b), c),
and d) below. In all of them we see the English
imperfective aspect (the present participle). But
only d) is iterative. The iterativity is caused
by two factors, namely, by the imperfective
aspect and a semelfactive (instantaneous) verb.
Because two factors (one expressing aspect and
the other expressing Aktionsart) must be combined
for an iterative interpretation, it is confusing
to classify this as "Iterative ASPECT." A better
definition of d) would be "an iterative event
cause by the imperfective aspect and a
semelfactive verb."
a) Peter was walking in the garden. (ACTIVITY-durative and dynamic)
b) Peter was building a house. (ACCOMPLISHMENT-durative, dynamic, and telic)
c) Peter was reaching the peak. (ACHIEVEMENT-dynamic and telic)
d) Peter was knocking at the door.
(SEMELFACTIVE-dynamic /"knocking" is both
dynamic and durative, but the "knock"-event
itself is only dynamic/)
Regarding Jeremiah 38:9: Verbs in the indicative
express actions and states in the real world.
Verbs that are modal express actions and states
in imagines worlds. We do not find any imagined
world in Jeremiah 38:9. But Ebed-melech is
concerned about the life of Jeremiah, and he
tells the king that the prophet "is on the point
of dying," or that "he will die" if the situation
continues. This is a critical situation in the
real world. It is no exaggeration (hyperebole),
because a person who has not eaten for a long
time, is on the point of dying, and, if he does
not get food, he will die.
Best regards,
Rolf Furuli
Dear Rolf:
While both you and I agree that the conjugation
of Hebrew verbs into qatal and yiqtol forms does
not indicate tense, as your statistics at the
bottom of your last message also indicate, I
don't see how you can maintain that the
conjugations grammaticalize for aspect.
When I look at the definition for 'aspect'
within linguistics, such as at the
<http://sil.org>sil.org glossary of linguistics,
it refers to time. Whereas 'tense' refers to the
relationship of where the action occurs on the
time line from past to future in relation to the
subject, 'aspect' refers to the length along the
time line that an action takes up, and to a
lesser extent, whether or not the action is
ongoing, or has been completed. Thus 'aspect'.
like 'tense', is a time measurement. By
definition. Or does <http://sil.org>sil.org use
the wrong definitions?
You have mentioned 'conative aspect' in an
earlier message. I don't see any relationship
between conation and time, neither tense nor
aspect. Is 'conative aspect' an oxymoron? While
'conative' is not listed among linguistic terms
at <http://sil.org>sil.org, if it truly does
indicate a linguistic understanding, would it
not properly be a modality?
In this verse, does not the use of a wayiqtol
indicate a modality, in this case subjunctive?
"that he should die because of it (being thrown
into the pit)".
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Rolf Furuli
<<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]>
wrote:
Dear Carl,
In my view, the hyperbolic claim regarding
Jeremiah 38:9 is an ad hoc explanation.
I agree there. The reason, as I see it, is that
the student does not understand why it is
correct that there is a wayiqtol in that
position in that verse. Therefore he is making
what is essentially a wild guess as to why the
sentence is constructed the way it is.
The reason for it is the view that the WAYYIQTOL
form is perfective, and a perfective verb
should not have an egressive force or refer to
the future. Therefore, when the map does not fit
the terrain, the terrain is wrong. A WEQATAL
would be no problem, as Randall shows.
A weqatal is wrong, as it is forcing Biblical
Hebrew grammar into an Indo-European
straitjacket.
I have a list of 997 WAYYIQTOLs with non-past
reference, 965 QATALs with future reference,
2,505 QATALs with present reference, 50
WEYIQTOLs with past reference, and 1,027 YIQTOLs
with past reference.
Best regards,
Rolf Furuli
Karl W. Randolph.
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
