The perfective-imperfective polarity is about external v internal view. It's a concept that needs some shoehorning, and therefore I think there is an easier fitting category: complexity. That is, simple v complex. Qatal presents an action simply (he killed), while Yiqtol presents an action in a complex way (he might kill, he will kill, he used to kill).
The problem with perfective and imperfective terminology is it may be taken to mean that an action is viewed as a complete whole when, in fact, the action is not complete. This is the case particularly with stative verbs (eg. I know) that don't particularly have an end and, as such, can't really be viewed 'as a whole'. It's conceptually difficult (though not impossible) to see an action of knowing 'as a whole'. The usual explanation that the state is achieved prior to the expression is an unnecessary dissection (an instigation of the action, separate from its effects) that actually then moves into imperfectivity (internal view of an action). Stative verbs, therefore, are almost by nature imperfective. Seeing things, however, as simple or complex overcomes this difficulty. The terminology of perfective-imperfective only works with considerable qualification at times. Most of the time it works fine, but the times it doesn't work needs such considerable explanation that I think we can move beyond it to a better paradigm: complexity. Hence, that's one of the aspectual categories I'm using in my model of the Hebrew verb. OK, I'd better get back to my urgent tasks here. GEORGE ATHAS Dean of Research, Moore Theological College (moore.edu.au) Sydney, Australia
_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
