[b-hebrew] Use and Misuse of Waw in Verb Tenses
furuli at online.no
Sun Sep 19 03:08:49 EDT 2004
Your post reveals that we speak two different languages, so I see no
purpose in continuing this discussion with you.
University of Oslo
Peter Kirk wrote:
> On 18/09/2004 06:45, Rolf Furuli wrote:
>> In Hebrew we have the verb $YR ("to sing"), which signals an action
>> which is durative and dynamic (dynamic=change). Regardless of
>> whether this root is used as an infinitive, a participle, a
>> WAYYIQTOL, or as a YIQTOL these two properties are always the same.
>> We can say that this root is marked for durativity and dynamicity,
>> and these properties can never be taken away from this root. This is
>> semantic (uncancellable) meaning, and the existence of this root (and
>> thousands of other roots with similar characteristics) *proves* (is
>> not only evidence of) that uncancellable semantic meaning can be
>> pinpointed in a dead language.
> A large number of examples of something cannot *prove* that there are
> zero counter-examples. It can of course provide very strong evidence
> for the proposition. But you can sample many millions of people and
> ask if they have walked on the moon; probably you will find that none
> have, but your conclusion from that that no humans have walked on the
> moon would be incorrect. Similarly, any number of examples cannot
> prove that there are zero examples of the durative and dynamic nature
> of $YR is uncancellable, and so on your terms strictly semantic.
>> The default interpretation of the root ML) is "to be full," which
>> signals stativity. However, in clauses where this verb takes an
>> object or there is an adverbial, the meaning can be "to fill.". This
>> shows that stativity applied to ML) is not semantic meaning, but
>> only conversational pragmatic implicature (it can change). In fact,
>> any Hebrew verb whose default interpretation is stativity can have a
>> fientive interpretation as well in other contexts. Thus, stativity
>> in Hebrew is not a semantic property.
> I see your point here, and accept that stativity is not semantic at
> least on your definition.
>> The important question in connection with this discussion is whether
>> it is possible to find semantic meaning in the WAYYIQTOL and the
>> YIQTOL, and in that case, whether this semantic meaning is similar or
>> different. However, that semantic meaning can be pinpointed in a
>> dead language is beyond question.
> I do not accept this last sentence. I do not see any methodolgy by
> which uncancellability can be proved in a dead language, especially
> where there is a limited corpus using a very limited subset of the
> probable registers of the language.
More information about the b-hebrew