B-Hebrew: The Biblical Hebrew Forum

In fairness to you, George, I know you weren't claiming your statement about tense carried explanatory power, but that something else in the discourse might be able to "predict" the form of a verb.

Regarding the definition of "aspect", I had to be very concise in my encyclopedia article on the study of the Hebrew verbal system.

Tense locates a situation in time, whether relative to the moment of speaking (“absolute tense”) or relative to another situation in context (sometimes called “taxis”). Mood conveys the reality of the situation in terms of attitude, intentions or expectations. Aspect is most commonly thought to convey the speaker’s view of the internal temporal constituency of a situation (as a single whole, or in its sub-phases and internal structure (Garr 1998, xxxvii).

I'll give a little more detail for those seeking to understand the relationship of tense and aspect in a subsequent post.

Tense
Since the work of Hans Reichenbach (Elements) tense logicians and linguists have visualized the three time frames of an event in terms of a model showing the relationship between the time of the utterance (speech time), the time about which the utterance is predicated (reference time), and the time of the event or situation itself (event time). Reichenbach proposed depicting “the three-place structure of time determination given in the tenses” (Elements, 290) in terms of the initials S, R, and E (for speech, reference, and event) on a time line. This depiction is referred to as the “event model.” To illustrate how the event model works, I will use some English examples. if I say today, “At noon yesterday I had already eaten,” the speech time (S) is today, the reference time (R) is noon yesterday, and the event time (E), the eating, must have occurred some time prior to noon yesterday. English does not encode the E:S relationship; it encodes the R:S relationship using the past, present and future tenses, and the R:E relationship by the auxiliaries “have” and “be going to.” Thus, without considering the “extended tenses,” the nine combinations of the R:S relation and the E:R relation can be tabulated as follows: Absolute tense is the traditional name for tenses that have the present moment as their reference point (Comrie, Tense, 36), i.e., the point about which something is predicated. Absolute tense is simply the temporal relation between the moment of speech (S) and the moment of the event (E). If E precedes S, the absolute tense is past; if E follows S, the absolute tense is future; and if E and S exactly coincide, the absolute tense is present.

Relative tense relates the time of the event not to speech time (S), but to the reference time (R). To contrast absolute tense and relative tense, absolute tense “should be interpreted to mean a tense which includes as part of its meaning the present moment as deictic centre; whereas relative tense refers to a tense which does not include as part of its meaning the present moment as deictic centre” (Comrie, Tense, 36). “The reference point for a relative tense is given by the context (and perhaps, by default in the absence of any other contextual indication, taken to be the present moment)” (Comrie, Tense, 125). Again, there are three temporal relations possible between E and R; these are relative past (or anterior), relative present, and relative future (or posterior).

Aspect
Like tense, aspect is concerned with time, but whereas tense is concerned with relating the time of the situation to another time-frame, aspect is concerned with the temporal constituency of the situation. In Comrie’s words, “One could state the difference as one between situation-internal time (aspect) and situation-external time (tense)” (Aspect, 5). To illustrate with an English example, the difference between “I did” and “I was doing” is a difference of aspect.
The basic polarity is between depicting an event as complete or in progress. The “perfective” aspect presents the situation “as a single unanalysable whole” (Comrie, Aspect, 3), and “imperfective looks at the situation from inside” (Comrie, Aspect, 4). Comrie uses the example, “John read that book yesterday; while he was reading it, the postman came” (Aspect, 4). In this sentence, one event (reading the book) is presented using two temporal constituencies: first as a complete event, then as an ongoing event. Robert Binnick explains, “Aspect has to do with the relationship of the event time E to the reference time R; complexive (perfective) aspect has E within R, imperfective has E and R overlapping, and perfect has E preceding R” (Time and the Verb, 458).

There are two ways to present the temporal constituency of a situation as a development or result: lexically and grammatically (Olsen, Semantic and Pragmatic Model, 3). Temporal constituency expressed by means of inflection is called “grammatical aspect”; this is what has been described above. Temporal constituency expressed by lexical means is called “lexical aspect.” The two lexical aspects that are relevant for Hebrew are dynamic and stative. For example, the verb “run” is lexically dynamic, i.e., it involves action or some kind of change. Other verbs cannot be dynamic; e.g., “know” does not involve any action or change and is therefore stative.

It does not follow that if a language does not inflect for tense, it must automatically inflect for aspect. Binnick notes that in too much of linguistic literature, “aspect” has “become a mere trash-bin category for everything temporal which is neither status, tense, nor mood” (Binnick, Time and the Verb, 401).

Jason:

Jason Hare wrote:So, "tense" would refer to the time and "aspect" to the type of action?

As I understand it, “tense” refers to time in reference to the speaker, and aspect to the type of time or whether the type of time is referenced at all. Both are measures of time. At least, that’s what I was taught.

Jason Hare wrote: Like "present" is (tense) now and "progressive" is ongoing or intentional (aspect)? Hebrew really isn't inflected for the difference between progressive and simple action. And if non-narrative biblical Hebrew doesn't mark for time, then it cannot be inflected for tense either.

Right.

But I include narrative Biblical Hebrew here as well.

Jason Hare wrote: I have a really hard time with this idea.

Growing up in a time based linguistic milieu, it was not easy for me either to come to this conclusion.

Since then I’ve studied another language, a modern one, where neither tense nor aspect are conjugated, rather both are features of the context. That modern language is Cantonese.

Jason Hare wrote: Narrative is so consistent (that is, that it is marked for actions happening in action strings, and interruptions within the narrative are marked with relative tense to the past) that it is frustrating that non-narrative (poetry, prophecy, etc.) is so inconsistent and topsy-turvy, with perfects and imperfects being used with no connection at all to tense. It makes you wonder what was really going on in their minds, if these forms were not tied to past and future. How could they have thought of action and time while penning these works? Is it just a feature of poetic utterance?

No, it’s not just a feature of poetic utterance. Grammatical usage is pretty consistent across all speech in Biblical Hebrew, not just narrative.

I don’t buy the argument that poetry is all goofy, as the same grammar patterns show up in non-poetic, non-narrative portions as well. As Rolf repeatedly points out.

One of the uses of the Yiqtol that I’ve found is continuation, that it supplements, adds to the main idea. In narrative, it’s used to draw the action on “…then this happened…” “…then that…” “…and that…” and so forth, as a big long, continuous story. The past reference is a feature of the context, not grammar.

Jason Hare wrote:Most of my time in the Bible is restricted to narrative and legal dealings, so in my head the verb in Hebrew is quite stable and close to what we use in modern Hebrew.

Is not a majority of the text legal or narrative? Even some of the poetry is narrative.

But that breaks down even in narrative with quoted speech.

Jason Hare wrote:Narrative is so consistent and headache-free, so why is poetry such a pain?

Because narrative is misunderstood.

Karl W. Randolph.

Thanks, Ken:

You have said these better than I.

Ken M. Penner wrote:It does not follow that if a language does not inflect for tense, it must automatically inflect for aspect. Binnick notes that in too much of linguistic literature, “aspect” has “become a mere trash-bin category for everything temporal which is neither status, tense, nor mood” (Binnick, Time and the Verb, 401).

I would amend this slightly to say that all too often, “aspect” has “become a mere trash-bin category for everything which is neither status, tense, nor mood”. Other than that, it seems to be right on.

Karl W. Randolph.

So, you agree that wayyiqtol (וַיִּקְטֹל) forms are tense-marked?

1. There is no WAYYIQTOL, only WAYIQTOL. Do you know of a place in the HB where WAYIQTOL is written with two yods?

2. There are no "tense mrkings" in Hebrew. WAYIQTOL = WA-YI-QTOL consists of three parts: the verb WA = BA בא 'came', the personal pronoun YI =HIY היא for the actor, and the the act.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

To the administrators,

Yesterday, about 5 PM Norwegian time, I sent a reply to the last post of Karl Randolph. But I cannot see the post.



Best regards,


Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway

Dear Ken,

It is fine to define tense and aspect. But I assume that several of the concepts used need more explanations. So I have a few questions.

1) What is the "temporal constituency of a situation"?

2) What is a "complete event"? Is there a difference between a "complete event" and a "completed event"?

3) If "I did" and "I was doing" have an aspectual difference, does that mean that simple past both is a tense and an aspect?

4) Broman Olsen argues that the English participle represents the imperfective aspect and that English perfect represents the perfective aspect; simple past is only a tense and not an aspect. If that is not correct, what is English perfect? Is it an aspect, a tense, or something else?

5) Would you please give your definition of what event time and reference time are? Broman Olsen's definition differs, for example, from Reichenbach's and Comrie's definitions. I would guess that most of the list members do not understand your use of E (event time) and R (reference time), particularly not in relation to aspect.

Ken M. Penner wrote:Aspect
Like tense, aspect is concerned with time, but whereas tense is concerned with relating the time of the situation to another time-frame, aspect is concerned with the temporal constituency of the situation. In Comrie’s words, “One could state the difference as one between situation-internal time (aspect) and situation-external time (tense)” (Aspect, 5). To illustrate with an English example, the difference between “I did” and “I was doing” is a difference of aspect.
The basic polarity is between depicting an event as complete or in progress. The “perfective” aspect presents the situation “as a single unanalysable whole” (Comrie, Aspect, 3), and “imperfective looks at the situation from inside” (Comrie, Aspect, 4). Comrie uses the example, “John read that book yesterday; while he was reading it, the postman came” (Aspect, 4). In this sentence, one event (reading the book) is presented using two temporal constituencies: first as a complete event, then as an ongoing event.

Aspect in the Event Model.png

Robert Binnick explains, “Aspect has to do with the relationship of the event time E to the reference time R; complexive (perfective) aspect has E within R, imperfective has E and R overlapping, and perfect has E preceding R” (Time and the Verb, 458).

There are two ways to present the temporal constituency of a situation as a development or result: lexically and grammatically (Olsen, Semantic and Pragmatic Model, 3). Temporal constituency expressed by means of inflection is called “grammatical aspect”; this is what has been described above. Temporal constituency expressed by lexical means is called “lexical aspect.” The two lexical aspects that are relevant for Hebrew are dynamic and stative. For example, the verb “run” is lexically dynamic, i.e., it involves action or some kind of change. Other verbs cannot be dynamic; e.g., “know” does not involve any action or change and is therefore stative.

It does not follow that if a language does not inflect for tense, it must automatically inflect for aspect. Binnick notes that in too much of linguistic literature, “aspect” has “become a mere trash-bin category for everything temporal which is neither status, tense, nor mood” (Binnick, Time and the Verb, 401).

Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway

Some quick answers:

R.J. Furuli wrote:1) What is the "temporal constituency of a situation"?

That expression comes from Comrie. I understand aspect to indicate how the event time and reference time overlap.

R.J. Furuli wrote:2) What is a "complete event"? Is there a difference between a "complete event" and a "completed event"?

For aspectual purposes, a complete event is one that whose time is completely included in the reference time. Yes, there is a difference between a complete event and a completed event. This is especially noticeable in future complete events, which are not yet completed.

R.J. Furuli wrote:3) If "I did" and "I was doing" have an aspectual difference, does that mean that simple past both is a tense and an aspect?

No.

R.J. Furuli wrote:4) Broman Olsen argues that the English participle represents the imperfective aspect and that English perfect represents the perfective aspect; simple past is only a tense and not an aspect. If that is not correct, what is English perfect? Is it an aspect, a tense, or something else?

English perfect is a relative tense, in which E<R=S.

R.J. Furuli wrote:5) Would you please give your definition of what event time and reference time are? Broman Olsen's definition differs, for example, from Reichenbach's and Comrie's definitions.

Could you provide page references to the definitions by Broman Olsen, Reichenbach, and Comrie?
I take it my post at viewtopic.php?f=6&t=33&start=10#p101 was not clear or not read.
Event time is when the event takes place. Historical reality sets the event time.
For a statement, reference time is the time about which the statement is predicated. Temporal expressions such as "now," "yesterday" "when John arrives" as well as context set the reference time.