Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

dearest rolf,

I see now that we are miles apart, and I understand exactly why---if
that's any consolation for all your efforts, full responses, and good
grace under fire.

I work in generative linguistics, and in this case, specifically
within syntax and "formal" semantics. I have certain assumptions,
methods, models and goals. I see now that we share very little of
these. Porter may be a fine fellow, but the linguistic world I inhabit
would judge the work harshly.

you say that aspect is purely subjective, and without semantic value.
we couldn't disagree more: aspect is semantic, and fully specifiable
within a tense-logic. so we part company at a very basic level of
assumptions and method.

if I understand you then, the whole system must be pragmatic, but that
doesn't mean anything to me. it's probably my lack of imagination, but
I don't see it.

the participle bears necessarily semantic aspect: in this case,
progressive in both English and Hebrew (though the exact
representations might be slightly different). you don't accept this. I
take this as a basic, a given. therefore, we also part company at this
basic point of description and frameworks.

I fear you may be misunderstanding Olsen at a really basic level.
since her notion of radical pragmatics is shared by most researchers
now, I think this is important. there is no license for subjective
aspect here, is there? in any case, this will be what I will look for
if I can find a Mac-user to help me retrieve the thesis.

thanks again for your detailed answers. at least we won't talk past
each other. I do fear that readers of this list will constantly be
making the same mistakes in interpreting what you're trying to say.

just a suggestion, from a rhetorical point of view, then: you might
want to find another word besides "aspect", call it "view" or
"viewpoint" or "rolfview" or whatever, then clearly define it (that's
always harder than it sounds), then reserve it as a technical term in
your work. the added clarity I think would benefit everyone, and
prevent the inevitable misunderstandings that I was having. just a
thought. from a formal point of view, we could even just call it
feature [F], then have [+F] and [-F] as its two values. just thinking
out loud.

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 idea of a perfect language risks becoming nothing more than a
waste bin for prejudices which have not survived confrontation with
linguistic reality.
  --Mark Sainsbury, "Russell", 1979: p15