Prototype Theory, qatal dependent?
dwashbur at nyx.net
Thu Dec 16 08:17:06 EST 1999
> > The most foundational features I would suggest for
> >qatal are [+dependent +realis].
> I would not go along with dependency for qatal,
> unless you add dependency for vayyiqtol and veqatal (notice they are
> prefixed with vav) which i wouldn't recommend.
They are prefixed with waw, but I have explained elsewhere why I
don't believe it's the conjunction.
> qatal is very nice independently, including clauses without vav.
How about some examples?
> i only have a little problem with +realis, because of performatives and
> negative contra-factuals, but those can be special applications.
> so i accept + realis
> though have used
> in my own publications.
Check out Hatav's book on this subject.
> the reverse problem occurs with yiqtol.
> would you want to say that the past-imperfective use of yiqtol is 'minus
> realis'? "he used to do", "they were [not] ashamed"gen 2.25 (the negative
> is used with both qatal and yiqtol so is irrelevant to argument). again,
> one can define those as special applications. but "indefinite" or "minus
> definite" more clearly forces a broad, prototypical definition from the
Once again I suggest you check out Hatav. She makes the case
for the fact that generics and habituals fall under the category of
modals. So perhaps I should change [realis] to [modal] to avoid
confusion; in this case wayyiqtol and qatal are [-modal] while yiqtol
and weqatal are [+modal]. There's no need to appeal to "special
applications" (I'm not sure what this means), and I certainly don't.
In dealing with modality I use Galia's definition.
Teach me your way, O Lord, and I will walk in your truth;
give me an undivided heart that I may fear your name.
More information about the b-hebrew