Does Hebrew have tense and aspect?
Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 7:17 am
This is an important subject different from the previous thread, so I start a new one.
Dear Rolf:
Jeg var glad ā se dit navn igjen.
You may be right that “aspect” has been defined in many different ways. At this time, I don’t know what is your definition. The definition that I use is from the SIL website, http://www.glossary.sil.org/term/aspect
“
Aspect
Definition:
Aspect is a grammatical category associated with verbs that expresses a temporal view of the event or state expressed by the verb.
Discussion:
Aspect is often indicated by verbal affixes or auxiliary verbs.
Kinds:
Imperfective Aspect
Perfective Aspect
Cessative Aspect
Inchoative Aspect
”
Biblical Hebrew conjugation has zero relation to any time views, neither tense nor aspect as defined at SIL.At the same time, I agree with you that except for indicative and subjunctive, the moods are also not like English moods. Apparently you call those differences from English “aspect” while I call them “moods, but different moods than found in English.” We may need new terminology.
R.J. Furuli wrote:Hi, Karl. it has been a long time since we had a discussion of hebrew. But it is good to see that you still are on the list. I disagree with you that the Hebrew conjugations represent mood. But I agree that proverbs 31:11-31 is a very good place to start one's study on Hebrew aspect.
Best regards,
Rolf J. Furuli
Stavern
Norway
We agree that Biblical Hebrew grammar is sufficiently different from English that it is difficult to use the same grammar terminology as is used in English and Indo-European languages. I use SIL as my grammar reference, but SIL doesn’t describe what I see in Biblical Hebrew grammar.
Karl W. Randolph.
Dear Karl,
The SIL definition of aspect is correct. But it is so general that it tells us virtually nothing. For example, what does the phrase "temporal view" mean? Tense also expresses a "temporal view." So what is the difference? I looked at the SIL page, and in my view, it creates utter confusion. The definitions conflates semantic and pragmatic terms, as well as aktionsart and aspect. Aspect is a subjective portrayal of a part of an action from a particular point of view, while aktionsart is the objective contents of an action. For example, durativity, dynamicity, and telicity are aktionsarts, and these are uncancellable—they always will be a part of a verb regardless of grammar and form. This means that they represent semantic meaning. Pragmatic facors are based on the context, and they are changeable. I dispute the claim that English simple past represents the perfective aspect; simple past is a tense and not an aspect. I would say that perfect expresses the perfective aspect in English and the present participle expresses the imperfective aspect. But English aspects are very different for Hebrew asepcts.
In order to avoid redundancy and subjective choices as much as possible I uses three basic parameters to define tense and aspect and the differences between them. These are "event time" (ET),"reference time" (RT), and the "deictic center" (C). The deictic center is the point from which an event is seen. Often the deictic center is speech time. but it can also be a point in the past or the future. The term "event time" refers to the time of an action from beginning to end. When we speak, we do not make visible the whole event time, but we only make visible a part of it. This part that we point to or make visible is reference time. Example 1) makes visible a part of the action after the beginning and before the end. This is the imperfective aspect in English. Example 2) makes visible the end of the reading event. This is the perfective aspect in English. But again, Hebrew aspects are different compared with the English ones.
1) Peter was reading the newspaper.
2) Peter has read the newspaper.
Now we have the parameters and can make some definitions. Both tense and aspect expresses time, but in different ways. Tense represents deictic time—time that is seen in relation to a deictic center, while aspect represents non-deictic time—time that is not seen in relation to a deictic center. The problem in many languages with aspects is that a time is often combined with the aspect because it is required to give meaning, and therefore it is difficult for a person to ascertain an aspect as totally free of deictic time. Past, present, and future are connected with the imperfective aspect in 1), 3), and 4). Example 5) represents the imperfective aspect in a non-deictic setting. But it has no meaning.
3) Peter is reading the newspaper.
4) Peter will be reading the newspaper.
5) *Peter reading the newspaper.
I will now proceed with the definition of tense and aspect based on the three parpameters.
Tense is the relationship between reference time and the deictic center. When the tense is past, RT comes before C, when it is future, C comes before RT, and when the reference is present, C= coincides with RT.
Past tense: RT>C
Present reference (present is not a tense): RT=C
Furure tense: C>RT
Tense is connected with a verb form, and because there is no verb form in Hebrew that has a uniform temporal reference, tense does not exist in Hebrew.
I will return to aspect, which is a relationship between refernce time (RT) and event time (ET). Aspect means that reference time (RT) intersects (ET) and makes visible a certain part of ET— even a part before ET (conative) or after ET (resultative) can be made visible. Because aspect is a kind of focus, In my dissertation I use three parameters related to focus to describe the intersection of ET by RT, 1) the breadth of the focus—how large an area or ET is made visible, 2) the quality of the focus—is RT seen, as if close by with details visible, or, as if at a distance with details not visible, and 3) the angle of the focus related to a point in the middle of ET.
The imperfective and perfective aspects in Hebrew make a part of an action visible in different ways. Based on the mentioned papameters, my dissertaion shows that the imperfective aspcet portrays six different relationships between ET and RT, and the perfective aspect portrays four other different relationships between ET and RT. All these ten relationships are aspectual, and therefore Hebrew is a language with aspects.
It was H. Reichenbach who coined the parameters "event time" and "reference time": "Elements of Symbolic Logic" (1947). A very fine book that scrupulously distinguish between semantic and pragmatic factors, and use the parameters C, ET, and RT is; "M. Broman Olsen, "A Semantic and Pragmatic Model of Lexical and Grammatical Aspect." (1997). It deals with aspects in English and Greek, and it teaches in an excellent way how to distinguish between tense and aspect.
Best regards,
Rolf J. Furuli
Stavern
Norway
Dear Rolf:
Jeg var glad ā se dit navn igjen.
You may be right that “aspect” has been defined in many different ways. At this time, I don’t know what is your definition. The definition that I use is from the SIL website, http://www.glossary.sil.org/term/aspect
“
Aspect
Definition:
Aspect is a grammatical category associated with verbs that expresses a temporal view of the event or state expressed by the verb.
Discussion:
Aspect is often indicated by verbal affixes or auxiliary verbs.
Kinds:
Imperfective Aspect
Perfective Aspect
Cessative Aspect
Inchoative Aspect
”
Biblical Hebrew conjugation has zero relation to any time views, neither tense nor aspect as defined at SIL.At the same time, I agree with you that except for indicative and subjunctive, the moods are also not like English moods. Apparently you call those differences from English “aspect” while I call them “moods, but different moods than found in English.” We may need new terminology.
R.J. Furuli wrote:Hi, Karl. it has been a long time since we had a discussion of hebrew. But it is good to see that you still are on the list. I disagree with you that the Hebrew conjugations represent mood. But I agree that proverbs 31:11-31 is a very good place to start one's study on Hebrew aspect.
Best regards,
Rolf J. Furuli
Stavern
Norway
We agree that Biblical Hebrew grammar is sufficiently different from English that it is difficult to use the same grammar terminology as is used in English and Indo-European languages. I use SIL as my grammar reference, but SIL doesn’t describe what I see in Biblical Hebrew grammar.
Karl W. Randolph.
Dear Karl,
The SIL definition of aspect is correct. But it is so general that it tells us virtually nothing. For example, what does the phrase "temporal view" mean? Tense also expresses a "temporal view." So what is the difference? I looked at the SIL page, and in my view, it creates utter confusion. The definitions conflates semantic and pragmatic terms, as well as aktionsart and aspect. Aspect is a subjective portrayal of a part of an action from a particular point of view, while aktionsart is the objective contents of an action. For example, durativity, dynamicity, and telicity are aktionsarts, and these are uncancellable—they always will be a part of a verb regardless of grammar and form. This means that they represent semantic meaning. Pragmatic facors are based on the context, and they are changeable. I dispute the claim that English simple past represents the perfective aspect; simple past is a tense and not an aspect. I would say that perfect expresses the perfective aspect in English and the present participle expresses the imperfective aspect. But English aspects are very different for Hebrew asepcts.
In order to avoid redundancy and subjective choices as much as possible I uses three basic parameters to define tense and aspect and the differences between them. These are "event time" (ET),"reference time" (RT), and the "deictic center" (C). The deictic center is the point from which an event is seen. Often the deictic center is speech time. but it can also be a point in the past or the future. The term "event time" refers to the time of an action from beginning to end. When we speak, we do not make visible the whole event time, but we only make visible a part of it. This part that we point to or make visible is reference time. Example 1) makes visible a part of the action after the beginning and before the end. This is the imperfective aspect in English. Example 2) makes visible the end of the reading event. This is the perfective aspect in English. But again, Hebrew aspects are different compared with the English ones.
1) Peter was reading the newspaper.
2) Peter has read the newspaper.
Now we have the parameters and can make some definitions. Both tense and aspect expresses time, but in different ways. Tense represents deictic time—time that is seen in relation to a deictic center, while aspect represents non-deictic time—time that is not seen in relation to a deictic center. The problem in many languages with aspects is that a time is often combined with the aspect because it is required to give meaning, and therefore it is difficult for a person to ascertain an aspect as totally free of deictic time. Past, present, and future are connected with the imperfective aspect in 1), 3), and 4). Example 5) represents the imperfective aspect in a non-deictic setting. But it has no meaning.
3) Peter is reading the newspaper.
4) Peter will be reading the newspaper.
5) *Peter reading the newspaper.
I will now proceed with the definition of tense and aspect based on the three parpameters.
Tense is the relationship between reference time and the deictic center. When the tense is past, RT comes before C, when it is future, C comes before RT, and when the reference is present, C= coincides with RT.
Past tense: RT>C
Present reference (present is not a tense): RT=C
Furure tense: C>RT
Tense is connected with a verb form, and because there is no verb form in Hebrew that has a uniform temporal reference, tense does not exist in Hebrew.
I will return to aspect, which is a relationship between refernce time (RT) and event time (ET). Aspect means that reference time (RT) intersects (ET) and makes visible a certain part of ET— even a part before ET (conative) or after ET (resultative) can be made visible. Because aspect is a kind of focus, In my dissertation I use three parameters related to focus to describe the intersection of ET by RT, 1) the breadth of the focus—how large an area or ET is made visible, 2) the quality of the focus—is RT seen, as if close by with details visible, or, as if at a distance with details not visible, and 3) the angle of the focus related to a point in the middle of ET.
The imperfective and perfective aspects in Hebrew make a part of an action visible in different ways. Based on the mentioned papameters, my dissertaion shows that the imperfective aspcet portrays six different relationships between ET and RT, and the perfective aspect portrays four other different relationships between ET and RT. All these ten relationships are aspectual, and therefore Hebrew is a language with aspects.
It was H. Reichenbach who coined the parameters "event time" and "reference time": "Elements of Symbolic Logic" (1947). A very fine book that scrupulously distinguish between semantic and pragmatic factors, and use the parameters C, ET, and RT is; "M. Broman Olsen, "A Semantic and Pragmatic Model of Lexical and Grammatical Aspect." (1997). It deals with aspects in English and Greek, and it teaches in an excellent way how to distinguish between tense and aspect.
Best regards,
Rolf J. Furuli
Stavern
Norway