[b-hebrew] Psa 107:19-21 (was WAYYIQTOL)

Peter Kirk peterkirk at qaya.org
Thu Mar 25 06:58:36 EST 2004

On 24/03/2004 17:22, Sameer Yadav wrote:

>So although I appreciate your warning about being
>cautious to reject explanations which appear to cover
>much of the data, I would also caution you from
>accepting an entire theory of modal semantics in
>natural language simply because it can be formed in a
>neat distribution around the usage of the conjugations
>in BH.  I think that the relationship has to be
>reciprocal, with good reasons to accept the general
>semantic account independently of the way those
>semantics are uniquely exhibited in one particular

Thank you, Sameer. I agree with you. From the data I have seen, Hatav's 
hypothesis is neither confirmed nor disproved. And even if it is 
confirmed for Hebrew, that does not imply that it is generally 
applicable to all natural languages - any more than are models derived 
from English, Russian etc. Modality is obviously a rather slippery 
concept (as we can see from English, Greek etc examples recently 
posted), and Hatav's definition is not the last word on it.

Peter Kirk
peter at qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk at qaya.org (work)

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list