Biblical Hebrew Forum

[yochanan bitan <ButhFam AT compuserve.com>]

shalom Haverim,

when comparing systems and discussing problems people need a common playing
field, which is why problems develop when quoting some people:

niccacci is basically lacking a semantic dimension to his linguistic model.

notice that in his model he must collapse nominal clauses together with
x-qatal clauses  ! 

he does not have a semantic framework for dividing these. he does not have
a semantic distinction for differing 'predication frames', frames that may
both generate an 'argument' at the start of the surface clause.
[friedrich did the same for old aramaic.]

until niccacci can distinguish the semantics of x-qatal from verbless
clauses i would continue to caution students in their use of him. 

i find that trying to generate surface output along his theoretical lines
produces a psychologically impossible/improbable language. 
[verbless: he is at the store. (fine)
verbal: went-he to the store. (fine)
x-verbal1: he is a wented-ing-to-the-store-kind-of-guy??? [this is not the
normal semantic function of BH x-qatal]
x-verbal2: to-the-store is a wented-ing-kind-of-guy???

better, semantically and syntactically with room for pragmatic discussion: 
have a predication frame that allows fronting/pre-verb placement of
predication consitutents.
in other words, a generative model of language exposes niccacci's 2 'lists'
as unworkable.]

linguistic theory must deal with syntax, semantics and pragmatics. deleting
one dimension is not a step forward.

braxot
randall buth