Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Vincent DeCaen <decaen AT chass.utoronto.ca>]

rolf,

I appreciate the work that you do in comparative translation, but I'm
not sure what theoretical status to assign to the comparisons, what
value for hebrew grammar. I personally don't think they had much
greater insight into the hebrew than we do: that's a null hypothesis.
you have to show me they had privileged insight into the workings of
both hebrew and their own languages. you also have to *assume* that
you've got your understanding of these other languages correct, which
becomes circular.

I'm a little confused though. on the one hand, you're arguing for
compositionality, noticing the adverbs, etc, and claiming that
readings are simplified and unified by a modular approach. bravo. but
then you turn around, after what looks like a strong claim for
monosemy of verb forms, and say different verb forms have no
difference in meaning. well, ok, if that's your claim, ok. but forgive
me for being confused.

I do think the general approach of separating verbal aspect
(aktionsart) from both verbal form and also sentence semantics is
essentially correct. but this business with a unified imperfective is
a bit of a nonstarter. sorry, have to be frank. on the other hand, you
have a keen insight into the issues around standard discourse
analysis, and express them better than I seem to be able. but I don't
think the SIL crowd is buying it. oh well.

but in reviewing your comments I noticed one descriptive if not
empirical inadequacy. maybe you can expand on this point for me. you
were suggesting that lo toxal would've been wattoxal without the
negative. yes. but it doesn't follow that wattoxal is equivalent to
toxal plus and. because wattoxal is consistent with lo 'axalah as
well. in other words, it looked like you were suggesting an "if and
only if" relation; but descriptively it's a one way street. seems to
be a formal problem for you. your conclusion doesn't go through
without more qualification. what say? what did I miss?

I would say that the following would be equivalent, except for
**stylistic** effect (both are basically perfective):

ken ki`asattah wattivkeh welo 'axalah.

V
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Vincent DeCaen, Ph.D.  <decaen AT chass.utoronto.ca>

Hebrew Syntax Encoding Initiative
http://www.chass.utoronto.ca:8080/~decaen/hsei/intro.html
c/o Deparment of Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations
4 Bancroft Ave., 2d floor, University of Toronto, Toronto ON, M5S 1A1
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

The world needs open hearts and open minds, and it is not through
rigid systems, whether old or new, that these can be derived.
--Bertrand Russell