[b-hebrew] b-hebrew Uncancellable meaning and Hebrew verbs

David Kummerow farmerjoeblo at hotmail.com
Mon Jul 6 19:11:36 EDT 2009

> Subject:
> Re: [b-hebrew] b-hebrew Uncancellable meaning and Hebrew verbs
> From:
> K Randolph <kwrandolph at gmail.com>
> Date:
> Mon, 6 Jul 2009 08:23:02 -0700
> To:
> B-Hebrew <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
> To:
> B-Hebrew <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
> James, Rolf and others:
> The argument below as stated I find as a false dilemma logical fallacy.
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 3:00 AM, David Kummerow<farmerjoeblo at hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi James,
>> Well, I'd like for you to explain how it may be analysed imperfectively.
>> As far I take the default construal of wayyo'mer in Gen 12:1 in its
>> context, event time is prior to the deictic centre, thus past. The
>> action refers to the whole of the speech event, not some part of it, so
>> therefore perfective. (God said all of what he said, not part of it.)
>> Like I said, please explain how this verb could possibly be taken as
>> imperfective in its context.
>> Regards,
>> David Kummerow.
> By not interacting with what he admitted elsewhere that Rolf found
> himself constrained to redefine “perfective” and “imperfective” for
> the purposes of his dissertation, because the forms are not
> grammaticalizations of the perfective and imperfective aspects as
> known from, for example, Russian, the above argument becomes nonsense.
> The argument could be made that Rolf would have been better served by
> inventing neologisms and defining them so as to prevent confusion
> between a common understanding of the terms “perfective” and
> “imperfective” and what Rolf means by those terms. Personally, that’s
> probably what I’d do. Though right now I am simply calling them Qatal
> and Yiqtol and saying that I see them as grammaticalizations of . . .
> When David admits that Rolf had redefined the terms but David doesn’t
> interact based on that redefinition, that effectively makes his
> argument nonsense.
> Karl W. Randolph.

Hi Karl,

Even his redefined definitions don't fit -- that's the point I've been 
trying to make. When Rolf repeatedly dodges examples like wayyo'mer in 
Gen 12:1 simply highlights this. I pointed out how it may be taken as 
perfective under a traditional definition. It remains for Rolf to 
demonstrate under his refined definition of imperfective aspect. I do 
not understand at all why you expect *me* to show how it's imperfective 
under his analysis. That's the whole point. I am unable to see how this 
is at all possible. Hence my questions about this. So I ask the question 
and then it just gets turned back on me to demonstrate that it can't be 
what Rolf says it is. Then I do this and then I'm condemned for this as 
well because I didn't say what Rolf says. This is just crazy and 

So now since Rolf, James, and Vadim all dodge the question -- can you 
please show me how wayyo'mer in Gen 12:1 is imperfective?

David Kummerow.

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list