Cover not available
Part of
Afroasiatic: Data and perspectives
Edited by Mauro Tosco
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 339] 2018
► pp. 61–83

Reconsidering the ‘perfect’–‘imperfect’ opposition in the Classical Arabic verbal system

A basic premise that prevails in Western grammatical descriptions is that the Classical Arabic verbal system is based on an asymmetrical opposition between two basic components: the ‘perfect’ faʿala and the ‘imperfect’ yafʿalu. The present study re-examines the validity of this premise, in view of several paradigmatic and syntagmatic characteristics of the verbal forms, in particular their syntactic distribution at the level of the clause and at the level of the text, their compatibility with modifying particles and with (verbal or nominal) clause patterns, and their interaction with various lexical classes. The study shows that the opposition between faʿala and yafʿalu is restricted to only some environments that, besides these two forms, comprise other verbal forms as well. The (a priori) postulation of an invariable meaning of each form and a fixed opposition between them is replaced by the delineation of various syntactic environments (‘contexts’) that include or preclude an opposition between the forms.
Keywords: Classical Arabic, verbal system, tense, aspect, contextual analysis
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.A brief account of the ‘perfect’–‘imperfect’ opposition in the literature
  • 3.Methodological problems
  • 4.Reconsidering the faʿ ala–yafʿ alu opposition in Classical Arabic
    • 4.1Syntactic environment
    • 4.2Compatibility with particles
    • 4.3Clause types (‘word-order’)
    • 4.4Lexical classes
    • 4.5Textual domains
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 1 February 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.339.05mar
References (39)
References
Primary sources
ʾAġānī=Rannāt al-maṯāliṯ wal-maṯānī fī riwāyāt al-ʾaġānī. 2 vols. 1923 (vol I), 1946 (vol II). (Extracts from Kitāb al-ʾAġānī, ʾAbū al-Faraǧ al-ʾIṣbahānī [d. 967]). Edited by Anṭūn Ṣāliḥānī. Beirut: al-Maṭbaʿa al-Kāṯūlīkiyya.Google Scholar
Buxalāʾ=ʾAbū ʿUṯmān ʿAmr b. Baḥr b. Maḥbūb al-Ǧāḥiẓ [d. 869], Al-Buxalāʾ. 1993. Edited by ʿAbbās ʿAbd al-Sātir. Beirut: Dār wa-Maktabat al-Hilāl.Google Scholar
Kalīla wa-Dimna=ʿAbdallāh ʾIbn al-Muqaffaʿ [d. 757], Kalīla wa-Dimna. 1926. Edited by Louis Cheikho. Beirut: Maṭbaʿat al-ʾĀbāʾ al-Yasūʿiyyīn.Google Scholar
Maġāzī=ʾAbū ʿAbdallāh Muḥammad b. ʿUmar al-Wāqidī [d. 823], Kitāb al-Maġāzī. vol 1. 1966. Edited by Marsden Jones. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ṣaḥīḥ=ʾAbū ʿAbdallāh Muḥammad b. ʾIsmaʿīl al-Buxārī [d. 870], al-Ǧāmiʿ al-Ṣaḥīḥ. vol 1. 1862. Edited by Ludolf Krehl. Leiden: Brill.
Sīra=ʾAbū Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Malik b. Hišām [d. 834], Kitāb Sīrat Rasūl Allāh. vol 1. 1858. Edited by Ferdinand Wüstenfeld. Göttingen: Dieterichsche Universitäts-Buchhandlung.
Taʾrīx=ʾAbū Muḥammad b. Ǧarīr al-Ṭabarī [d. 923], Taʾrīx al-rusul wa-l-mulūk. 15 vols (in 3 series). 1879–1901 (reprint 1964). Edited by Michael J. de Goeje et al. Leiden: Brill.
Secondary sources
Aartun, Kjell. 1963. Zur Frage altarabischer Tempora. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Bahloul, Maher. 2008. Structure and Function of the Arabic Verb. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Beeston, Alfred Felix Langdon. 1970. The Arabic Language Today. London: Hutchinson University Library.Google Scholar
Brockelmann, Carl. 1908–1913. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen, 2 vols. Berlin: Reuther & Reichard.Google Scholar
Cohen, David. 1989. L’aspect verbal. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Cohen, Eran. 2006. “The Tense-Aspect System of the Old Babylonian Epic”. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 96.31–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Marcel. 1924. Le système verbal sémitique et l’expression du temps. Paris: Imprimerie nationale.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ewald, Heinrich. 1831–1833. Grammatica critica linguae arabicae. Leipzig: Hahn.Google Scholar
. 1891. Syntax of the Hebrew Language of the Old Testament, translated by James Kennedy. Edinburgh: Clark.Google Scholar
Fleisch, Henri. 1961–1979. Traité de philologie arabe. 2 vols. Beirut: Dar el-Machreq.Google Scholar
Fleischer, Heinrich Leberecht. 1885. Kleinere Schriften, vol 1. Leipzig: S. Hirzel.Google Scholar
Fischer, Wolfdietrich. 2002. A Grammar of Classical Arabic, 3rd edn. trans. by Jonathan Rodgers. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
García, Erica. 1991. “Grasping the Nettle: Variation as Proof of Invariance”. New Vistas in Grammar: Invariance and Variation, ed. by Linda R. Waugh & Stephan Rudy, 31–59. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gaudefroy-Demombynes, Maurice & Blachère, Regis. 1952. Grammaire de l’arabe classique, 3rd edn. 2 vols. Paris: G.P. Maisonneuve.Google Scholar
Goldenberg, Gideon. 1966. The Amharic Tense-System. Jerusalem: Hebrew University dissertation.Google Scholar
. 2006. “On Grammatical Agreement and Verb-Initial Sentences”. Loquentes linguis: Studi linguistici e orientali in onore di Fabrizio A. Pennacchietti, ed. by Giorgio Borbone, Alessandro Mengozzi & Mauro Tosco, 333–339. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Götz, Manfred. 1980. “Bemerkungen zu den Tempora des Althocharabischen”. Studien aus Arabistik und Semitistik: Anton Spitaler zum siebzigsten Geburtstag von seinen Schülern überreicht, ed. by Werner Diem & Stefan Wild, 86–98. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Holes, Clive. 2004. Modern Arabic: Structures, Functions, and Varieties. Washington: Georgetown University Press. 2nd edition.Google Scholar
Kinberg, Naphtali. 1989. “Some Modal, Aspectual and Syntactic Constraints on the Use of qad in the Verbal System of Classical Arabic”. Studia Linguistica et Orientalia Memoriae Haim Blanc Dedicata, ed. by Paul Wexler, Alexander Borg & Sasson Somekh, 170–179. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrasowitz (=Kinberg, Naphtali. 2001. Studies in the Linguistic Sructure of Classical Arabic. Leiden: Brill, 121–131).Google Scholar
Khan, Geoffrey. 1988. Studies in Semitic Syntax (London Oriental Series 38). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1988. “Towards a Typology of Clause Linkage”. Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse, ed. by John Haiman and Sandra A. Thompson, 181–225. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marmorstein, Michal. 2017a. “On Verbal Generic Sentences in Classical Arabic”. Labor omnia uicit improbus: Miscellanea in Honorem Ariel Shisha-Halevy, ed. by Nathalie Bosson, Anne Boud’hors & Sydney H. Aufrère, 493–518. Louvain: Peeters (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta).Google Scholar
Marmorstein, Michal. 2016 b. “Subtleties of Narrative Syntax: Patterns of Chaining in Classical Arabic Narratives”. Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 43.219–249.
Nöldeke, Theodor. 1963. Zur Grammatik des Classischen Arabisch. Im Anhang: Die handschriftlichen Ergänzungen in dem Handexemplar Theodor Nöldekes, bearbeitet und mit Zusätzen versehen von Anton Spitaler. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Reckendorf, Hermann. 1895–1898. Die Syntaktischen Verhältnisse des Arabischen, 2 vols. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
. 1921. Arabische Syntax. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Reuschel, Wolfgang. 1996. Aspekt und Tempus in der Sprache des Korans (Leipziger Beiträge zur Orientforschungs 6). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
de Sacy, Antoine Isaac Silvestre. 1831. Grammaire arabe à l’usage desélèves de l’École spéciale des langues orientales vivantes, 2 vols. Paris: Imprimerie royale. 2nd edition.Google Scholar
Shisha-Halevy, Ariel. 2007. Topics in Coptic Syntax: Structural Studies in the Bohairic Dialect. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
Waltisberg, Michael. 2009. Satzkomplex und Funktion: Syndese und Asyndese im Althocharabischen. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrasowitz.Google Scholar
Wright, William. 1896–1898. A Grammar of the Arabic Language, 3rd edn. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar