[b-hebrew] cancellable dynamicity
Isaac Fried
if at math.bu.edu
Tue Jun 30 19:07:49 EDT 2009
The Hebrew root (say, NZL, NPL, $PL) represents a material state,
nothing dynamic.
Isaac Fried
Boston University
On Jun 30, 2009, at 6:47 PM, Yitzhak Sapir wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 7:16 PM, K Randolph wrote:
>
>>> On the face of it, what appears to be going on is that NZLYM,
>>> generally
>>> a term for a verb that is at least telic, durative, dynamic, is
>>> used here
>>> as a noun only. It generally means "rainwater" because rainwater is
>>> something that drops down/NZL from the sky. But here, it has
>>> lost its
>>> verbal semantics and means "rainwater" even when that rainwater is
>>> stored in a bottle. The poetry uses this term because it emphasizes
>>> the miracle.
>>>
>> In Biblical Hebrew it does not mean specifically “rainwater”, rather
>> in the Bible it is used with well water and water from springs and
>> streams. In Song of Songs 4:16 the verb is used with spices, not
>> water. The few times it is used in connection with clouds, even there
>> it can be used in the same way as we say in English that “clouds pour
>> down water”. Another thing I noticed with NZL is that it is never
>> used
>> in the Bible apart from a poetic context. So much for the
>> lexicographic considerations.
>
> Hello Karl,
>
> Whether NZL is used only in poetic contexts or not, the fact of the
> matter is that NZL does appear to lose those attributes that Olsen
> claims are not cancelable. Now, the question might be -- does this
> mean that NZL is not inherently dynamic, etc. But the actual
> identification of dynamic, etc. attributes is relatively
> subjective. It
> depends on some common notion and understanding of semantics.
> Does NZL imply some kind of change? I can't be sure, because
> to me it seems to imply the same kind of elements (movement,
> primarily) that is present in other dynamic situations (run) but
> how do I know? Olsen says that a wink or a cough is not durative
> -- it is instantaneous. This is actually debated in studies by
> others who study lexical aspect. The idea of a dynamic verb losing
> its dynamicity when used in construct clauses as a participle is
> present also in 1 Ki 14:28 t? hrcym, and Ezek 40:44 l$kwt $rym.
> It is really hard to see in these phrases any of the original
> dynamicity that marked the original nouns, and in these cases
> rwc 'run' and $yr 'sing' are explicitly verbs that are identified by
> Olsen as dynamic. Olsen's research may be useful in studies
> of lexical aspect, but it is important to understand that even
> experts in lexical aspect don't always accept her conclusions,
> and may in some cases modify, reject, or build upon them. If we
> force ourselves to understand phrases such as "t? hrcym" --
> perhaps the room where the "runners" stood awaiting orders --
> as dynamic, we are letting the theory interpret the evidence
> (since the semantics of the sentence are the evidence for
> theories of semantics) rather than let the evidence lead us to the
> theory. It's a recipe for circular argumentation. Incidentally,
> Olsen's
> theory may be more attuned to Modern English where "room of the
> running" or "bottle of the raining" are not as common. Naturally,
> most research on lexical aspect is directed at Modern English.
> This does not always mean it is immediately applicable to other
> languages.
>
> Yitzhak Sapir
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
More information about the b-hebrew
mailing list