Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Alviero Niccacci <sbfnet AT netvision.net.il>]

Title: Re: Niccacci & semantics

Dear B-Hebrew list members,

I know Randall Buth since several years and I am grateful that he cared to comment on my work. We agree in one basic point--on text grammar, or discourse analysis, but otherwise disagree.

Here are some reactions to his posting.

- He writes that I "must collapse nominal clauses together with x-qatal caluses !".  I take this "must" as meaning that the evidence brings me to that conclusion. Actually, I starded my research with no presuppositions. I simply tried to understand the function(s) of the verbforms and of the non-verbal constructions of BH.
From a reading of the texts I saw that under certain circumstances a second-position verb form plays the same function as a non-verbal construction. I concluded that both structures are nominal--nominal in function although they may contain a finite verbform.

- In my opinion this does not mean that I cannot "distinguish the semantics of x-qatal from verbless clauses". I tried to show that although the basic syntactic function is the same, the time reference and aspect value are different. I do distinguish one from the other.

- In one sense, Buth is right that I am "basically lacking a semantic dimension". Actually, I am totally against imposing any semantic dimension to the syntactic analysis. I think that syntactic analysis is based on morphology and text analysis; the semantic dimension can only be a consequence of the syntactic functions.

In other words, I take into consideration a verbform or a non-verbal construction in its morphological structure and try to understand its function(s) from the texts. The first challenge is to find good examples capable of throwing light on that point. The way one has to translate a certain verbform or non-verbal construction depends on its function. Semantic considerations--such as the meaning of the root or term involved, or the impact of the context on it, or whatever--come after and are subservient to syntactic analysis.

As I suggested several times, the basic problem of BH syntax is to understand the respective functions of verb-first versus verb-second sentences. I suggested specific textual settings capable of clarifying this issue. See, e.g., the following essays--"Essential Hebrew Syntax", in: E. Talstra, _Narrative and Comment. Contributions presented to Wolfgang Schneider_, Amsterdam: Societas Hebraica Amstelodamensis, 1995, 111-125; "Finite Verb in the Second Position of the Sentence. Coherence of the Hebrew Verbal System": ZAW 108 (1996) 434-440; "Basic Facts and Theory of the Biblical Hebrew Verb System in Prose", in: E. Wolde, van (ed.), _Narrative Syntax and the Hebrew Bible. Papers of the Tilburg Conference 1996_ (Biblical Interpretation Series 29), Leiden - New York - Köln: Brill, 1997, 167-202.

- I hardly recognise myself in the examples of verbless clause, x-verbal1 and x-verbal2 put forward by Buth. I would rather address real BH texts and try to test the theory. This is what I did already for several texts of BH prose. Recently I also begun testing the theory in poetry.

Alviero Niccacci

On  02/10/99 (Fw: Niccacci & semantics)  Randall Buth wrote:

> From: yochanan bitan <ButhFam AT compuserve.com>
> To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
> Cc: b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
> Subject: Re:  Niccacci & semantics
> Date: Wednesday, February 10, 1999 6:50 AM
>
> 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

Please, in your reply put the addressee name in the subject
=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=
Studium Biblicum Franciscanum      Tel. +972 - 2 - 6282 936
POB 19424 - 91193 - Jerusalem      Fax  +972 - 2 - 6264 519
Israel
Home Page:     http://198.62.75.1/www1/ofm/sbf/SBFmain.html
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
     Professors Email  mailto:sbfnet AT netvision.net.il
      Students Email mailto:sbfstud AT netvision.net.il
o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o