Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] b-hebrew Uncancellable meaning and Hebrew verbs

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] b-hebrew Uncancellable meaning and Hebrew verbs
  • Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2009 09:38:17 +1000

Hi James,

Hi David,

I haven't read your article and don't where it is. I'm guessing from comments in this email that your basic position is that different forms have different uses and that there is generally a usage which occurs frequently enough to be the default understanding. If so, then we seem to agree on this point.

May I make an observation? Very often in all fields of research we see a flame war of some kind, the opposing parties of which, at first glance, seem to have contradictory views. However, on closer inspection these flame wars generally boil down to minor misunderstandings and that, in actual fact, the two parties seem to be defending almost the exact same position but with different approaches that blind the opponents from realising just how similar their position is. This seems to me to be what is happening between you and Rolf.

When we analyse your positions closely you both seem to be saying almost the exact same thing but with different approaches. You both seem to concur that:

1) pragmatics and semantics both have influences
2) pragmatics can cancel default semantics

I agree. But Rolf disagrees. And that is the basic sticking point. For him, any meaning which is able to be cancelled is not in fact semantic meaning but is pragmatic.

3) the pragmatics in our hebrew corpus show that tense is often cancelled
4) the pragmatics in our hebrew corpus show that aspect is often cancelled

I agree. But Rolf redefines aspect so that to his reading of the text in every case it is not cancelled. Again, this is a sticking point -- hence my questions regarding wayyomer.

5) the corpus shows that hebrew verbs have different uses as Rolf's statistics show

It seems to me that the reason you seem to be blinded to the fact that you are arguing an almost exact stance as Rolf is that you seem to be stuck on this uncancellable meaning thing and Rolf's conclusions of the uncancellable meaning of the verb forms.

No, that's not true. See my responses above.

Rolf has already made it quite clear that the uncancellable meaning thing is actually a very small part of the study.

Not true. PLease read his dissertation. Trying to find the uncancellable meaning of the BH verbal forms is his aim throughout his work!

The most salient part of the study, and what you seem to be missing, is his analysis of the verbs and the statistics he has gathered which show the various uses of the verbs and that both tense and aspect are often cancelled.

No, he claims that his definitions are suitable for every example in the corpus.

Rolf has also made it clear that he accepts the possibility that there may be no uncancellable meaning to the verb forms but has shown that if there is an uncancellable meaning that his study attempts to explain what it is.

At the end of the day it really makes little difference if there is or is not an uncancellable meaning. It is very unlikely that the hebrews were conscious of such a meaning when they used the verb forms. What they were conscious of (I conclude by introspection) was the intended usage they had in mind each time they used the verb forms. So the really interesting question is "What signals can we reliably use to discern the intended usage?" rather than "What is the hypothetical uncancellable meaning that the hebrews were unaware of?".

The great value of Rolf's study is the statistics he has gathered using his method of analysing the verbs.

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly and stated this explicitly in my review.

This gives us a starting point to consider the different usages and ways of identifying them reliably. And so, as I have said before, if you really wish to give a worthwhile critique of Rolf's work, it's high time you moved on from the uncancellable meaning thing and moved onto Rolf's technique of analysis.

James, I've already published in this area. I do not get what you meaning by "moving on from the uncancellable meaning thing" -- as I've been arguing, we should all move on from it because it is not a linguistic reality. I can't "move on" from it because I do not hold that position myself.


I would like to invite you one more time to analyse a section of the corpus using Rolf's method to see if your results have any major disagreements with Rolf's.

Well, OK, I'll start at Gen 12:1. First verb is problematic. Default construal can really only be taken as past perfective. Rolf would say that it is past imperfective. Already we see it not working so I see no point in continuing on.

Regards,
David Kummerow.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page