Hi,
Jumping into a discussion in B-Hebrew and having an good overview of what have
been said seems impossible, so if the following is totally irrelevant, I
apologize:
Based on the examples you give (activities, achievements etc.) I think that the
"situation aspects" or "procedural traits" is what is normally called
"predicational aspect" or "lexical aspect" (or aktionsart, I thought, but
Routledge Encyclopedia of Linguistics claims this is a mistake). This is a
lexical-semantic category, so what is it doing in a discussion of verb forms?
Regards,
Daniel Lundsgaard Skovenborg
>________________________________
> From: Rolf <[email protected]>
>To: B-Hebrew <[email protected]>
>Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 10:06 AM
>Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] verb form
>
>
>Dear Nir,
>
>You should have read my dissertation before you tell the list-members what I
>mean and what I have done.
>
>> in order to show that BH does not consider time as verb form parameter, rolf
>> defines time in a very narrow and non-compromising sense, imposed by some
>> theories. this, of course, is the wrong direction: in an empirical science,
>> it
>> is fact which determines theory. BH indeed uses time in more
>> ways than he envisages.
>
>> of course, in spite of rolf's opinion, almost everybody
>> agrees that BH uses time as an important determinant of
>> the verb form. however, not in the same way english does, for example. or
>> chinese. these diferences should be made precise.
>
>I never "define time," but I define the concept "tense." Here I follow
>Comrie's definition, namely, that tense "is grammaticalized location in time."
>For example, this mens that if a language has tenses, we can see a uniform use
>of some verb forms: Some forms are uniformely used with past reference, and
>other forms are used with future reference.
>When we find that all verb forms in a particular language can have past,
>present and future reference, that language does not have tenses. I have
>already mentioned that I have found 997 WAYYIQTOLs with non-past reference and
>956 QATALs with future reference. The only way to nullify my conclusion that
>these examples show that Hebrew does not have tenses, is to show that the
>mentioned WAYYIQTOLs and QATALs occur in strange contexts. But that is not
>true; the examples occur both in poetic and prose texts.
>
>I mentioned in my post to Kimmo that the best example of a uniform use of verb
>forms of which i know, is Greek imperfect. If anyone can give me an example of
>a non-past use of Greek imperfect, please do that off-list.
>
>Here I have two important questions for you: Is there a language in the world
>where the semantic meaning of verb tenses is different in poetic and prose
>texts? What is your evidence that the semantic meaning of Hebrew verbs are
>different in poetic and prose texts?
>
>
>> aspect, too, is divided under most theories into viewpoint aspect and
>> situation aspect. for some reason, in the BH context the
>> perfect(ive)/imperfect(ive) division is called by many "aspect", ignoring the
>> other half, i.e. the distinction between (in first approximation, see
>> wendler,
>> smith etc) state and event.
>>
>> so, what rolf calls "aspect" is really only "half aspect".
>> where is the other half?
>
>Your statement above leads to confusion. You refer to Carlota Smith. She uses
>the terminology "viewpoint aspect" for perfectivity and imperfectivity, and
>what she calls "neutral viewpoints." She uses "situation aspects" with
>reference to the Vendlerian concepts states, activities, achievements,
>accomplishments, and semelfactives. In my dissertation I use all the
>Vendlerian concepts, but I subsume them under the name "procedural traits" and
>not "situation aspect." The important thing is not the term used, but that
>each term is clearly defined. So I do not use "half aspect."
>
>I downloaded your manuscript. The basic weakness in my view is that you do not
>have clear definitions of your terms. For example, you use the term "gnomic"
>in a much wider sense than usual. Therefore, your interpretations including
>"gnomic" cannot be tested. A few comments to your "all-propositions" in a)
>and b).
>
>> a) wayiqtols and weqatals describe events and not states.
>> unless the reason for the waw-prefix is SYNTACTIC (i.e. there was no
>> alternative).
>
>Your words "there was no alternative" are very interesting, because they can
>be applied to the WAYYIQTOLs used of events in narrative texts as well. In a
>narrative text, the reference is past, and one event follows the other. So
>there is no alternative to the use of the WAW-prefix (expressed as WAY because
>of ohonological rules); thus, the WAY-prefix is syntactically conditioned.
>This means that the verb form in each case is YIQTOL, but because of
>syntactical requirements, the YIQTOL has a WAY-prefix.
>
>>
>> b) all wayiqtols and weqatals have the value "relative future",
>> compared with their event predecessor verb form. with the same caveat.
>
>All-propositions are notoriously dangerous. What is "relative future"? In
>Table 6.2 in my dissertation there are 26 examples where the time of the
>WAYYIQTOL is similar with the time before (there are more examples as well).
>
>Examples:
>
>1 Samuel 1:17 "answered and said."
>2 Kings 18:28 "stood and called," "spoke and said."
>1 chronicles 29:22 "ate and drank."
>
>Some examples OF WAQATAL with the same time reference:
>
>Jeremiah 50: 22 "will stumble" (WAQATAL) and "will fall" (WEQATAL); "will
>kindle a fire" (WEQATAL) "will consume" (WEQATAL.
>Jeremiah 51:8 "will fall (QATAL) and "will be broken" (WEQATAL)
>Jeremiah 51:44 "will punish (WEQATAL) and "will spew out" (WEQATAL)
>
>
>Why not apply your theories to Jeremiah, chapters 50 and 51. In 50, there are
>32 QATALs with future reference. There are also 17 WEQATALs, 50 YIQTOLs and 2
>WAYYIQTOLs with future reference. In 51, there are 27 QATALs with future
>reference. There are also 38 WEQATALS, 32 YIQTOLs, 2 WEYIQTOLS, and 4
>WAYYIQYOLs with future reference. How shall we explain all these different
>forms with future reference? Does any of them represent tense?
>
>
>Best regards,
>
>
>
>Rolf Furuli
>Stavern
>Norway
>
>
>
>
>>
>> nir cohen
>> _______________________________________________
>> b-hebrew mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>b-hebrew mailing list
>[email protected]
>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
