[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
>language.
>  
>

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)
http://www.qaya.org/




More information about the b-hebrew mailing list