Dear Karl,
I have nothing to add to my last post except that I analyze the clause "He lived in Norway" as a tense (simple past) and not as an aspect. Best regards, Rolf Furuli Stavern Norway Onsdag 11. September 2013 20:52 CEST skrev K Randolph <[email protected]>: > Dear Rolf: > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 8:53 AM, Rolf Furuli <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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. > > > > Wrong! Aspect is one thing in all aspectual languages, namely a measurement > of time. True, there are many different subsets to measurement of time, and > not all languages share the same subsets to the measurement of time, but in > all aspectual languages we talk about a measurement of time. > > Whereas tense refers to the locus of time in relation to the speaker—past, > present and future—aspect refers to questions such as the length of time, > beginning, ending, or not considered at all. > > > > 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? > > > > Once it is clear that aspect refers to time, then this definition is clear. > E.g. the sentence: > > “I lived in Norway” > > is perfective aspect, in that it simply takes the event as a whole, without > referencing how long, whether continuous, repeated, or any other such > “inner structure” measurement of time. > > > > 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? > > > > Once it is accepted that aspect is a measurement of time, the “inner > structure” of the measurement of time would be How long? Continuous? > Starting? Ending? Repeated? and similar measurements. Imperfective aspect > addresses these questions, perfective aspect merely takes the action as a > whole. > > These are the definitions of aspect that I’ve been taught in all languages > I’ve studied that have aspect. > > As a lexicographer myself, I can appreciate the difficulties that the SIL > writers had when writing these glosses, when they tried to be as short as > possible, yet give an accurate definition. I think the gloss for > “imperfective” aspect could have been clearer, but it would have been much > longer as well. > > “I lived in Norway for a year.” addresses both the tense (simple past) and > duration (“inner structure” of the time, how long?). > > > > > 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. > > > > There is a norm. > > There are two main measurements of time—tense and aspect. > > Tense is broken down into three main measurements—past, present and future, > plus subsets of these and fuzzinesses. > > Aspect is broken down into two main measurements—perfective and > imperfective aspects. > > Perfective aspect looks at the action as a whole. > > Imperfective aspect has many subsets, not all languages share all subsets. > > But all of these are measurements of time. > > > > > 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. > > > > Why use “close-up view” and “distant view” when merely using “imperfective” > and “perfective” aspects would communicate? > > > > > 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. > > > > Why not just use the standard terms within “aspect”? This is so > idiosyncratic a use of terminology that it’s hard to follow along. > > > > > No study of any of the Semitic languages have have used the three > > mentioned universal units as parameters. > > > What three universal units to be used as parameters? It may be clear in > your mind, but not clear to me, and I suspect not clear to most of the > people on this list. > > > > 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. > > > > It is messages like this one that make me wonder if you really understand > what is aspect as the term is used in linguistics. > > I came to a study of Biblical Hebrew, first being taught that it conjugated > for tense, with “tense” being defined the same way as the SiL gloss. I > agree with your study that Biblical Hebrew does not conjugate for tense. > > I was also taught a second option, that Biblical Hebrew might conjugate for > aspect, with “aspect” being defined the same way as the SIL definition, > though using a couple of pages or more for the definition so that there > should be no misunderstanding. I really tried to fit Biblical Hebrew into > this aspect box, but it just doesn’t fit. Had I kept a record of all my > attempts, I probably could have written a dissertation on why Biblical > Hebrew is aspectless. > > For some reason, most linguists insist that Biblical lHebrew conjugation > must conjugate for some measurement of time. If not tense, then aspect. > That’s starting from a Euro-centric view because all European languages > that I know of conjugate for time measurements. > > My conclusions were arrived at as a result of my studies, in spite of what > I was taught. > > > > > 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. > > > > The first step would be understanding the terms you use. > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > Rolf Furuli > > Stavern > > Norway > > > > Karl W. Randolph. _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
