George: Ruth is again correcting me on my use of terminology and it looks as if I’ll have to change how I say things again.
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 1:30 AM, George Athas <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi Ruth! > > Thank you for your insightful comments. I think you've shown quite well > that we need to distinguish the nature of an action (Aktionsart) from how > it is depicted and presented to a reader (aspect). The two are not the > same, but they are often confused. > Now this is confusing. “Aspect” is one linguistic term that I was taught that I remember, and my memory is the same as http://www-01.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOflinguisticTerms/WhatIsAspect.htm. How does your use above fit in with the SIL definition? > > … > > … A much better explanation of the variation in aspect is according to > definiteness and indefiniteness. Just as one might switch between 'a horse' > and 'the horse' in nouns, so we can switch between 'an action in > particular' and 'an action in general'. > Again “definiteness” http://www-01.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOflinguisticTerms/WhatIsDefiniteness.htm. No argument that I can see there. The problem I see is that passages as Proverbs 31;10–21 and plenty of others is that there’s no definiteness/indefiniteness being expressed by verbal usage. In Proverbs 31:10–31 all the verbs express indefiniteness. Equally so. Yet the conjugations are Qatal and Yiqtol (including Wayyiqtol). Therefore the conjugations express something other than definiteness/indefiniteness. > > > *GEORGE ATHAS* > *Dean of Research,* > *Moore Theological College *(moore.edu.au) > *Sydney, Australia* > > Karl W. Randolph.
_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
