Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Vince (and Bryan),

Sorry for the delay in answering.
>
>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.

If I understand Bryan correctly, he says that different verb forms may have
no difference in meaning, i.e. in a narrative text, may a yiqtol, a
wayyiqtol or a qatal be perfective. This means (if I have understood him
correctly) that the discourse function of verbs may determine their aspect
and not their morphology. I have learned several things from your
dissertation and also from Bryan' s work. But I strongly object to the view
that discourse analysis be used deductive-nomologic, as does Nicacci, e.g.
that discourse function determines meaning.

My view is that verb forms with different morphology (say gemination or a
difference in vowel points) have different meanings, except when this
difference is due to 1) phonetic laws, 2) to parsing rules, 4) to variation
(e.g. diachronic change of meaning), or 5) to textual corruption. So I seek
to isolate the semantic meaning of the smallest parts of the verbal system
rather than to find meaning by help of pragmatics (the function of the verb
forms). I also learn much by function (discourse analysis) but not semantic
meaning. So, when more than 90 per cent of the wayyiqtols are used with
past meaning, and the perfective aspect is almost universally used in
narratives in the world's languages, I still ask: Is wayyiqtol a preterite
or is it used with past meaning for pragmatic reasons? and Why can not the
imperfective aspect be used in narratives?

The reason why my working hypothesis is that wayyiqtol and yiqtol have the
same semantic meaning, is that all their differences may be just phonetic
and not semantic. All you have to do to destroy my working hypothesis is to
find a difference between yiqtol and wayyiqtol in unpointed texts.
(Apocopated forms with waw will not be accepted because there are many
apocopated weyiqtols and yiqtols in the BH) So I return to basic principle:
The best way to find a difference in meaning is to use minimal pairs (units
with just one difference, e.g. pine and line). The more differences we have
to account for, the less certain is our interpretation. When we come to
discourse analysis and the handling of big chunks of texts we are
completely lost, as far as semantic meaning is concerned. There simply are
no controls. I find discourse analysis to be a fine tool to look for
patterns and to learn the habits of those who wrote the text, but not to
find the meaning of the verb forms.

>
>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.

The view held by most researchers is that there is a semantic difference
between wayyiqtol and yiqtol, either one of tense (preterite versus
present/future) or one of aspect (imperfective versus perfective), or one
of tense/aspect (perfective/preterite versus imperfective/present/future).
I tried to point out the following regarding 1 Samuel 1:7:  In this verse
we have  1 qatal, 1 wayyiqtol and 3 yiqtols, all verbs with past meaning.
Is there a semantic difference between these verbs. There certainly is one
between the qatal and the others, one of aspect (seen by the difference in
morphology).  Regarding the 3 yiqtols and the 1 wayyiqtol there need not be
any semantic difference - and this was my main point: In the BH we find
hundreds of examples of yiqtols with past meaning, and the reason why they
are not written with prefixed wa, is that some other element is preceding
them. This would suggest that there is no semantic difference between the
forms. Your suggestions above are of course possible, but why did not the
author write 4 wayyiqtols in 1: 7 when he wrote 8 in vv 18 and 19?


Regards
Rolf

Rolf Furuli
Lecturer in Semitic languages
University of Oslo






>
>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
>
>---
>You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: furuli AT online.no
>To unsubscribe, forward this message to
>$subst('Email.Unsub')