Re: Perfect mood

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Harlan Messinger wrote:

Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 07:03:27 -0500
From: Harlan Messinger <hmessinger.removethis@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: Perfect mood

Stefano MAC:GREGOR wrote:

But as for Hebrew, "perfect" is an aspect. Modern Hebrew grammar
calls it "past tense", and the other aspect, "imperfect", it calls
"future tense". The participle is called "present tense". The
terminology works, and is easier for some people to understand than
the classical terminology.

As far as I know, it's the *correct* terminology for modern Hebrew. In what
way in modern Hebrew is "hu lamad" not past tense and in what way is "hu
yilmad" not future tense? The form in "hu lomed" is by origin a participle and
continues to be used as such, but in its use in "hu lomed" in what sense is it
not functioning as a present tense?

Some years ago, I had a short email exchange with a linguist at an Isreali
university. My question was first and foremost about Biblical Hebrew, but he
commented on Modern Hebrew as well. Among other things, he wrote:

As for MH, I'm afraid that hardly any serious research has been done
regarding Tense and/or Aspect. Native speakers will probably attest to the
existence of three "tenses", but as linguists, we strive to look for what
given forms *mark*. It is highly unlikely, in my opinion, that, e.g., the
"present participle" (kotev, medaber, etc.) actually marks the
present. In many cases, it is used to describe actions or states in the
future or even in the past.

If I understand him correctly, one could as well deny that the German
present tense *marks* present. It can as well describe actions or states in
the future (in this case it is even the usual form) or even in the past.

--
Helmut Richter
.