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: James Read <J.Read-2 AT sms.ed.ac.uk>
  • To: David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] b-hebrew Uncancellable meaning and Hebrew verbs
  • Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2009 16:34:58 +0100

Hi David,

it would seem that you have completely misunderstood my request. I didn't ask you if you agree with Rolf's definition of perfect and imperfect aspect. Rolf has provided statistics of the verb forms with respect to temporal reference.

I was interested in you performing an analysis using the tools Rolf has used to see if you come up with statistics that vary to any significant degree. I consider 1 verb form to be an excessively small corpus and you failed to show what linguistic tools you used to analyse the verb form.

James Christian


Quoting David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>:

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.
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew





--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page