farmerjoeblo at hotmail.com
Wed Dec 12 04:57:34 EST 2007
I thought we were discussing nominal and adjectival gender-marking and
Isaac's contention that it is instead person-marking (ie that the
morphemes refer to the non-speech-act participant)? You do realise that
you've now changed the discussion here to *verbal inflections*?! Verbal
inflections are of a different order to nominal and adjectival
gender-marking, and is sometimes diachronically related to independent
personal pronouns. In regards to the BH suffix verb this is quite likely
the historical source of the inflections. There is no problem with
analysing verbal inflectional morphemes as simultaneously indexing
gender and person (or number, for that matter). I maintain that this is
*not* the case with nominal and adjectival gender-number marking, which
does *not* index person. Neither Isaac nor yourself have provided actual
textual examples demonstrating your position, and, crucially, have not
provided the theoretical linguistic argument explaining why the standard
linguistic theory regarding nominal and adjectival gender-marking as it
relates to BH is better explained as instances of person-marking.
> I may agree with you in a general way.
> Indeed, while a final -T may refer both to male ("amarta" Jr 45:3) and
> female ("amart" 2Sa 6:22) second person singular...what about such words
> as "YFR:)FH", she feared (Jr 3:8), where final -H
> is both marker of gender and of person?
> Is it something merely
> coincidental, a hazardous or chancy case?
> Pere Porta
More information about the b-hebrew