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
Onsdag 11. September 2013 13:30 CEST skrev K Randolph <[email protected]>:
> Dear Rolf:
>
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 3:58 AM, Rolf Furuli <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > … . By analyzing all the verbs of the Tanakh by these three parameters, I
> > found that tense is not grammaticalized in Hebrew; and I found that
> > Hebrew has aspects and how these aspects differ from the aspects in
> > English and other aspectual languages.
>
>
> Oh oh, it looks like you are using an idiosyncratic definition for “aspect”
> that no one else uses. Would you care to explain yourself?
>
> I use the definition from SIL “Aspect is a grammatical category associated
> with
> verbs<http://www-01.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOflinguisticTerms/WhatIsAVerbLinguistics.htm>
> that
> expresses a temporal view of the event or state expressed by the verb.”
> which leads me to the conclusion that Biblical Hebrew doesn’t conjugate for
> aspect.
>
> Isn’t it better to invent a new term for an observed phenomena than to
> repurpose an established term in an idiosyncratic way? By doing that,>
> wouldn’t you avoid misunderstanding?
>
> Karl W. Randolph.
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
