Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] David's article

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] David's article
  • Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 09:40:02 +1000


Exactly, Karl. Ancient Greek is even less sparing with its use of the definite article with names.

There are such few examples of non-definite use that I think it is improper to put the category on par with the usual uses as is done in the grammars.

In his other email Harold has to again and again say that he knows exactly what is happening in the context of the passage such that to him it seems absurd that the use of the article could in no way be considered consistent with its usual uses. To me it's just a bit too presumptuous. In most examples the possibility cannot be ruled out ABSOLUTELY. That's the point. If this is at all granted, then it follows that the category of "non-definite use of the definite article" should not be given grammatical status on the same level with the regular uses.

I grant that there is some conceptual overlap with the disputed examples with generic use. However, when actual so-called non-definite examples are referred to they still remain different from generic use as these examples are in no way generic. It remains to be demonstrated that definite articles can be used to refer specific unknown entities.

Indefinite pronouns are quite interesting. Russian, for example, has an indefinite pronoun, koe, which is used for the expression of specific known referents (from Haspelmath 1997: 274-275):

Nam nado pogovorit' s toboj koe o čem.
"You and I have to talk about something."

Another pronoun, -to, inter alia, refers to specific yet unknown referents:

Ona xočet vyjti zamuž za kogo-to iz Ameriki.
"She wants to marry someone [specific] in America."

English some- covers both range of uses.

Now, regrading definite articles, once a language has grammaticalised a definite article, further semantic bleaching and weakening can occur, which reduces definiteness to specificity, as in Abkhaz and Dagbani (Lehmann 1995: 39). Referential meaning can then be lost altogether so that the morpheme merely functions as a nominaliser. Now, regrading BH, it remains to be demonstrated that such semantic bleaching of the definite article has indeed occurred, and that its use is encroaching upon indefinite referral like that given above.

Haspelmath, Martin. 1997. Indefinite Pronouns. Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lehmann, Christian. 1995. Thoughts on Grammaticalization. Lincom Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 1. München: Lincom.


Regards,
David Kummerow.






Subject:
Re: [b-hebrew] David's article
From:
"K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
Date:
Tue, 19 Jun 2007 08:58:50 -0700
To:
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

To:
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org


Harold:

Not only does English use the definite article more sparingly than
does Biblical Hebrew, it uses it more sparingly than even other
Indo-European languages: I am thinking specifically of German.
Therefore it is improper to project English usage back onto Biblical
Hebrew.

This is a case where I think the grammarians are making a mountain out
of a molehill.

Karl W. Randolph.

On 6/19/07, Harold Holmyard <hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net> wrote:
Dear David,
... Of course this is a
much smaller category of usage than the regular definite article, for
there are only a limited number of instances where the usage would be
suitable. But a limited number of occurrences of a usage does not
invalidate a usage.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page