Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Galia Hatav <ghatav AT aall.ufl.edu>]

Hi Dave,


>Let me apologize to Galia and everyone else for taking so long to
>pick up this and some other threads.  I hope they're not already
>passe.  I haven't been ignoring you (nor am I conceding!), but
>illness and some other factors have kept me sidelined for a while.  I
>hope these topics are still relevant, so here goes.

        Are you kidding?! These subjects have been around for,literally, a
thousand years!

Hi again , Dave,

I read your current letter a few times, and I am determined to understand
your position (please don't give up on me). I found myself going back and
forth: Yes, I understand now; No, I probably have not; Oh, yes,...

You are right, we need first to use terminology the same way (mine,
ofcourse...) before we can discuss anything. So let me see if I understood
you.  You wrote:
> Yes, and the verb forms - the syntax -...
I have a problem with this. The forms have to do with morphology; not
syntax.  I am aware that in the last decade or so Chomskyian analyses
consider morphology to be strongly connected with syntax, however not
identical to it. Now why are you calling them "syntax"?   You suggest that
they are generated in D-Structure and then move, right? Do you want to say
that they in D-structure we have one form or the other, depending if the
clause in question is independent or not? But this, I guess, brings us to
the problematic distinction between "clause" and "sentence".

I agree that there is a big problem with the terms 'clause' vs. 'sentence'.
X-bar does not help to clarify them, since now even independent sentences
are analyzed as having an invisible COMP (unless this has changed again -
it is difficult to keep up with the changes of the theory if you don't do
syntax per-se).   (By the way, before I forget, are you familiar with
Vincent Deacan's diss? He suggests a syntactic analysis within GB.)  But if
you adopt this way of thinking, how can you talk about independent
syntactic 'thought' characterizing wayyiqtol clauses?  If I understand you
correctly, what you mean by that is that a wayyiqtol clause is not
coordinated or subordinated to another clause. [I thought of borrowing the
terminology used in in Morphology. I think of the terms "free" and "bound"
clauses, where "bound" clauses would be subordinated or coordinted. A
"sentence" would be an equivalent term to "word", meaning that it may
consist of one "free" clause and possibly also of a "bound" one?] I agree
with that 100%.  As opposed to wayyiqtol, you argue that a qatal clause is
either subordinated (which for some reason you seem to have a problem with)
or coordinated to a previous clause.  I agree with this almost 100%.  When
it is subordinated the clause cannot be independent by definition, and
usually it is subordinated to the previous clause. (But see below.) When it
is waw-x-qatal you understand the clause to be coordintated to the previous
wayyiqtol clause. The latter suggestion might be problematic. Chomsky in
*ASPECTS*, attributed to Humboldt, argues that you can coordinate only
phrases which are alike. A lot was written about that since. One of the
most important accounts was Partee & Rooth who show that the coordinted
phrases yield a new phrase of the same kind. Now if wayyiqtol clauses are
independent ("free") and qatal clauses are not, they are not lalike and
cannot lbe coordinated. I thought maybe you meant something like (1) below:
        1. Mary left the party early. But John had not arrived yet.
        2. Mary sang and John danced.
The second clause in (2) is clearly coordinated to the first clause. But
what about the second clause (sentence?) in (1)?  It has the conjunction
"but", but is it coordinated to the first clause? In this case, I assume,
the "but" would be considered an element with a DISCOURSE function -
cohissiviness. Would you, Dave, discard with this distinction (namely,
syntactic coordination within a sentence vs. cohissive sgianl across
sentneces)? In any case, you could argue that the waw in qatal clauses is
something like "but" in # (1). I am sympathetic with the argument, lbut
lthen you have to explain the (small) number of cases when you do not have
a waw in a qatal clause. The most famous example is the first clause in the
Bible: BRESHIT BARA... If you accept Ibn-Ezra and Rashi, this is an
adverbial clause, and thereofre it is subordinated to the one of the NEXT
clauses. This is not necessarily a problem for what you saying, if you
explain it in terms of movement.
        Now what about OTHER forms? Except of wqatal, which will have to be
analyzed in the same way like wayyiqtol, all the other forms would have to
be explained the same way as qatal. Then what is the difference between
them, syntactically speaking?  If you accept that the motivation of using
this form or the other is SEMANTIC (in terms of truth conditions), the
answer is simple. However, this will not reconcile lwith Chomsky's
categorical argument that God created syntax, and all the rest follows.

Dave wrote:
>Galia wrote:
>> Hi Dave Washburn,
>>
>> Dave wrote:
>>
>> >Let me pause right there and develop further what I meant by
>> >"thought."  I think this may be part of the communication difficulty
>> >we're having in this thread.  Here is a snippet of my article:
>> >
>> >The WP construction signals a separate thought not syntactically
>> >connected with what precedes it.  Note that this statement says
>> >"not *syntactically* connected"; it says nothing about semantic or
>> >pragmatic connection.  The construction will be the form of choice
>> >for narrative prose simply because it behaves just like the verbs in
>> >(a)-(d) [a list of clauses describing the minutes of a meeting - dw].
>> >It neither links with what precedes, nor does it contradict or force a
>> >break.  It simply indicates a new thought.  (p.44)
>> >
>> >The question of syntactic connection, along with the strict
>> >separation of syntax from other features of language, is the key to
>> >this description.  In the case of the qatal, there is a syntactic
>> >connection of some kind with the material around the qatal clause
>> >(exactly what it is, of course, remains to be fully understood).  After
>> >reading your book, I really like the idea of a "new" R-time.
>> >However, see below.
>>
>>      Yes. I agree that syntax is not a factor in determining the use of
>> the form Wayyiqtol.  It rather depends on the interpretation and truth
>> conditions of the clause, which are semantic notions.
>
>I think I've been misunderstood here.  I am saying that syntax *is*
>a factor in determining use of the WP.  That's why I use the
>expression "syntactic connection."  The qatal signals a syntactic
>connection, the WP signals a syntactic break.
        Considering what I wrote above, did I finally understand?


>What I want to add
>> here is that we must be careful in not putting in the same basket semantics
>> and pragmatics, and that we need also to add discourse structure (DS) into
>> the picture. Let me elaborate.  Traditional linguistics (and here I am
>> including the Chomskian approach) refers to the term "syntax" as well as
>> "semantics" only with respect to sentences (and its components). Hans Kamp
>> in his DRT and Irena Heim in her "cards" theory show that the the structure
>> of the discourse has its own rules, affecting truth-conditions (TC). In
>> order not to aggrevate anybody, or maybe to keep things separately, they do
>> not call the study of DS "syntax", but they still show that not only
>> clauses but independent sentences have a crucial rule in determining TC.
>
>Here is where we get into a problem of definitions.  I tend to avoid
>the term "sentence" because it is so imprecise.  For a survey of
>the problems surrounding this word see Andersen (1974).  I prefer
>to speak of clauses and higher units built out of clauses, and in
>fact if one reads the literature on transformational grammar, what
>these call the "sentence" is actually a clause; each "sentence"
>consists of a single string of words dominated by a predicate
>(usually a verb).  Even the next X-bar level above that, S-bar,
>dominates a single clause (I'm simplifying here; subordinate
>clauses muddy things a bit, but they are actually considered
>projections of S/S-bar themselves).  I agree with what has been
>said about discourse structures etc.; however, when it comes to
>examining and determining what exactly is expressed by such
>things as verbal forms, I believe that discourse analysis etc. only
>provide a secondary line of investigation.  To get at the syntactic
>heart of the forms (I dislike the expression "semantic meaning") it
>seems to me necessary to stay at the clause level, at least in the
>main.  Syntax has first and foremost to do with how clauses are
>built and why some are well-formed and others are not.  The WP is
>formed by movement of the verb to the beginning of the clause and
>attachment of the prefix (whatever we conceive that prefix to
>actually be).
        So what we have in D-Structure under the V-node is NOT wayyiqtol
but yiqtol?  Where is the preifix located? Is it under SPEC of C? Did I
loose you again? (In America you would rather ask: Did you loose me?)


The question at hand is, what (syntactically
>speaking) conditions permit, perhaps require or prefer, this
>transformation to take place?  I don't think discourse analysis can
>answer that question.  Once we find the answer, it can inform and
>clarify a lot in discourse that is still nebulous; hence I see a definite
>order ("sequence" if you will ;-) to the lines of investigation that
>needs to be followed.

        Agreed upon the line of thinking. The theory of sequentiality I
adopted, namely Kamp's DRT, suggests exactly that. clauses either move the
R-time forward or not. If they do, they are "independent" semantically
speaking in the sense that they do not need an explicit adverb to anchor
them in time. IF they are implemented in a narrative, they will be part of
the time-line. {Maybe you think of the independent nature of such clauses
to be syntactic because you believe anaphora is purly syntactic. This is
not a crazy idea.]

>> Most people consider discourse analysis to be part of pragrmatics. I don't
>> like that. As I see it, pragmatics does not determine TC, although many
>> times it strondly IMPLICATES them. Sematnics has to do with TC, while
>> pragmatics has to do with inferences and implictures,which can be
>> cancelled. TC have to do with logical implications which may not be
>> cancelled.
>
>Agreed.  I would take this a step further and say that neither is a
>subset or or subsumes syntax.  Syntax has to do with well-
>formedness of structures and ordering of constituents, which may
>only be cancelled or altered diachronically over a fairly lengthy
>period of time (depending on the language).
        OK
>
>I recall one of the people asked if there is a difference
>> between BH and English concerning the verb forms.  The crucial difference
>> between them, it seems to me, is that in BH the form of Wayyiqtol always
>> builds an R-time, which results in sequence in the narrative. In English
>> the simple past is used for that purpose, but it does not entail
>> (logically) that the clause in which it appears necessarily builds a new
>> R-time.
>
>And yet, English is tensed and BH is not!  I mention that as a
>curiosity, little more.

>Consider first the difference between (1a), (1b) and (1c) below:
>>      1. a. Mary entered the room. She turned the light on and...
>>            b. Mary entered the room. She felt depressed...
>>         c. Mary turned off the light. It was dark in the room.
>> We understand the second sentence in (1a) to move the time forward, so we
>> see it as building a new R-time.   The second sentence in (1b) is
>> interpreted as reporting a state which overlaps in time the event of
>> entering the room. So although its verb is in simple past, the clause does
>> not move the R-time forward.
>
>Yes, and the verb forms - the syntax - can never tell us these
>things about either one.  We must resort to "higher" levels,
>discourse or pragmatics (and in both cases, the wider context,
>which is implied in both of these disciplines) as well as the
>semantics of each clause, to determine this.  At this point, the
>only thing the syntactic information in these clauses can tell us is
>that what is being reported is past tense from the POV of the
>speaker.
>
>Hinrichs (1986) builds a theory around
>> aktionsarten, claiming that the difference between (1a) and (1b) is due to
>> the fact that the second sentence in (1a) reports an event while the second
>> sentence in (1b) reports a state. however, he himself shows that statives
>> are not necessarily understood to overlap in time the situation reported in
>> the previous clause. (1c) is a variation of an example he himself provides.
>> He explains that by saying that eventive clauses introduce the NEXT R-time.
>> I will not get into showing why this does not work either (I explain it in
>> my book and in my article 1989). I brought this up to claim that in English
>> we understand sequence only by pragmatic inferences.  In (1c) we understand
>> the room being dark as a RESULT of Mary's turning off the light, and
>> therefore we see it as happening after it. But inmagine the room being dark
>> all the time, and the light was in the corridor. So Mary turned off the
>> light (in the corridor),  the room was dark to begin with, but she didn't
>> know that, and when opening the room she fells, etc. Since the sequence in
>> English is due to pragmatic inference, it can be cancelled.
>
>This can be done with (1b) as well:
>
>Mary entered the room.  She felt depressed when she saw the pile
>of bills on the desk waiting for her attention.
>
>Here we do have sequence, so this reinforces what you are saying
>about English.  The event/state distinction makes no difference, the
>only thing that determines sequence is the pragmatic context.
>
>This may be
>> shown also by the following example:
>>      2. Mary wrote her article, read the new book about BH, washed her
>> her, called John, and went to the party.
>> Due to Grice's maxim of manner, which says "be orderly," we understand the
>> events in (2) to happen in the same order they are reported. But we may
>> very well cancell the implicature by adding the phrase "not necessarily in
>> that order".  Now, contrary to English, I claim, this cannot be done in
>> case of Wayyiqtol in BH, since it *semantically* builds the R-time; it is
>> not a pragmatic inference.  Now we understand a series of wayyiqtols to
>> form a sequence in the narrative not by pragmatic inference, but by the
>> rules of the narrative discourse.
>
>This is where we part company.  I see no need to posit this for the
>WP.  The only reason I have seen to date why we should is
>because, statistically, the vast majority of occurrences appear to
>be in sequences. However, one could pull out any good-size
>section of narrative prose in English and cull the same statistics
>about the English simple past!
        But then how can you explain why statives in wayyiqtol are
interpreted as inchoatives (if they are not modified by a durative), while
in English it is only one the possible interpretations?

 The question, which I raise again,
>is whether sequence (even as defined more recently to include the
>first element in a chain) is sufficient to provide a unified account of
>the uses of the form.  I don't think it is.
        Agreed!!!

There are too many
>counter-examples even within Galia's own corpus.  That 97% figure
>needs all kinds of qualifiers around it, because on p.57 we see that
>the statistical analysis begins by tossing out 20% of occurrences
>of the WP because "there were a number of cases where the text
>itself could not determine with respect to (my) knowledge of the
>world whether there was sequentiality, but where the interpretation
>of sequentiality is possible."  (p. 56)  From the "rest" it is
>determined that 94% are sequential, and of the 6% remaining half
>of those may have a formulaic explanation.  So we are actually
>looking at 94-97% of 80% of the corpus examined, which still
>leaves a large chunk of the material formally unaccounted-for.  That
>bothers me more than a little.
        That bothers me too, but the 20% are NOT counterexamples. How are
we supposed to account for them?  It makes sense to add them to the
supportive examples, provided you accept the thesis. How would you account
for them within your syntactic theory?  First you establish that wayyiqtol
clauses are independent "thoughts" according to unambiguous cases. Then you
apply the claim to the ambiguous clauses. By the way, how would you examine
your thesis? Is there a way to refute it?
>
>> Re *qatal*. I am not sure what you mean by "syntactic connection".
>
>Syntactic connections are things like subordination, coordination,
>presence of anaphors, sequence, things like that.

        Re "presence of anaphors" we have a problem - it is a
syntactic-semantic phenomenon (see Reinhart). Re "sequence" - I believe
this has to do with discurse structure, which brings us back to the problem
of terminology.

>A
>> *qatal* clause does not build an R-time, and therefore it cannot be
>> interpreted by itself (concerining its temporalilty). Therefore it is
>> usually interpreted with respect to a neihgboring (usually previous
>> clause).
>
>Yes.  I'm considering the idea that the same R-time constitutes a
>syntactic connection, but haven't fully explored it yet.
>
>However, it may have an adverb to give it its interpretation as in
>> Gen. 30:21, and Gen. 22:1. You may object to these examples as
>> illustrations of the qatal not being syntactly dependent, but rather
>> semantically.  You may say for the 30:11, "And afterwards she bore a
>> daughter" that "and afterwards" connects the clause with the previous one.
>> But the connection is not syntacitc.
>
>I wouldn't say that at all.  "Afterwards" sets the temporal relation,
>but the simple "and" connects the clauses syntactically.
>Moreover, I would suggest that it's possible to understand )aXaR to
>mean "and finally" or "at last"; it could also be subtly indicating a
>"different" conception/birth, that of a girl.  Notice that, after
>Reuben's birth, each new conception by Leah says "She conceived
>again," WaTTaHaR (oWD; when we get to Dinah (after the
>intervening episode of Bilhah, also part of an unbroken chain of WP
>clauses in ch. 30) we have )aXaR.  There may be a subtle
>semantic distinction between the two adverbs, but one factor is
>significant: the writer seemed to feel it necessary to use (oWD to
>denote a sequence of conceptions and births, or at least to convey
>that Leah was a serious baby factory.  If the verb form is inherently
>sequential, I would not think this would have been necessary at all.
        It is not necessary to have (oWD, but it is necessary to have
wayyiqtol. I am not sure if (oWD necessarily conveys the meaning of
sequence, but if it does it must appear in a sequential clause which
demands a sequential verb form.

>Compare it to the following example:
>>      3. Mary went to Orlando. She wanted to see Disney World.
>> The second sentence in (3) is syntacticly independent, but it cannot be
>> interpreted by itself since it contains the anaphoric pronoun "she", which
>> demands an antecedent for its interpretation. Similarly, "Afterwards..."
>> would be a well formed indepedent sentence, but must have an anticedent for
>> the anaphoric temporal phrase "afterwards".
>
>Agreed.  I would suggest (tentatively) that in addition to the needed
>antecedent (a syntactic connection that has occupied Chomsky for
>a decade or more), English-speaking listeners would see an
>implied "because" between the two clauses: "Mary went to Orlando
>[because] she wanted to see Disney World."  Hence, the second
>clause is explicitly dependent because of the anaphor, and
>implicitly dependent because there is a clear causal relationship
>between the two.  This latter connection appears to be more
>semantic or pragmatic than syntactic, and I confess I haven't
>worked all of that through yet.
>
>As for Gen. 22:1. The WAYHI
>> phrase is not an independent clause. Although it is usually translated as
>> "and it came to pass", it is not reporting an event, but serves as an
>> adverbial.
>
>Agreed.
>
>> Dave also wrote:
>>
>> >Yes!  However, I would suggest that "their own R-time" has, in
>> >much of the literature, been assumed to mean that this R-time will
>> >*necessarily* be subsequent to the R-time of the previous clause (if
>> >there is one).  I suggest this is not the case.  The new R-time can
>> >be anything: subsequent (as in narrative prose), the very beginning
>> >of something (a la Jonah 1:1), a back-loop of the type we have
>> >been discussing recently, a resumptive clause after an aside (as in
>> >much of Andersen's material, but see also my TC article), and
>> >several other uses.  The critical part of my view to keep in mind is
>> >that these factors are NOT determined by the fact that the clause
>> >has a WP verb, they are determined by the meaning of the clause
>> >in question (in relation to the meanings [semantics] of the clauses
>> >around it) and the pragmatics of the discourse unit the clause is in.
>> >In this sense, the WP is a "simple" non-modal form.  As John R.
>> >put it, use of the WP is nothing spectacular, what should catch our
>> >eye is use of something other than the WP.
>>
>>  If you are right, and wayyiqtol in the narrative can be "anything", you
>> will have to determine the conditions for it to be this thing or the other.
>> As for Jonah 1:1, this is what we should expect: the first clause on the
>> time-line MUST be in a sequential form.
>
>Then why does this happen so infrequently?  Nearly all of the
>"minor" prophets should have begun with a WP under this view, yet
>they don't.
        Jonah is assumed to immitate the language of the First Temple. The
other prophets use a language from a later period when the aspect system of
the First Temple had collapsed.

As for "conditions for it to be this thing or the other" my
>point is still being missed.  Syntactically, it is always the same
>thing: a simple indicative-clause, non-modal, declarative clause.
        You putting in the same basket syntax and semantics.  The phrases
"simple indicative-clause" is a syntactic notion. The term "non-modal" is
semntic, and "declarative" is semantic, too, but some regard it pragmatic.

>What it is semantically (i.e. state, event, durative, punctiliar,
>inchoative, telic etc.) depends on the semantics of the verb used.
        Partly it has to do with the root, but partly with the verb form.
E.g., the root HYY is understood to denote a stative situation 'be', but
when it appears in wayyiqtol it is necessarily understood to denote
inchoativity.

>How it relates to other material around it (sequence, back-loop,
>aside, all the matters we have been discussing) depends on the
>pragmatics of the unit where it appears, as well as the semantic
>and discourse-level forces of the clauses around it.  In terms ONLY
>of syntax, the form has nothing to say about these matters becaus
>they are not the provenance of syntax.  When we examine the
>levels separately, we find a unified field of usage of the form that
>really does explain all the usages, and from a generative point of
>view it does produce all and only the well-formed clauses of the
>language that use that form.
        Agreed, but instead of "syntax" I assume "truth-conditional
semantics" to determine the use of the forms.

>
>[snip]
>> >This might seem circular,
>> >> but it is not.  The definition of what is a narrative discourse is taken
>> >> from linguists and literature people such as Labov and Reinhart,
>> >> independently from the forms in BH.  So, when checking narrative
>>stretches
>> >> in BH, I expect all and only the WP clauses to appear on the (actual)
>> >> time-line. The question remains, How do WP clauses behave in
>> >> non-narratives.  There, too, as I said above, they form an R-time.
>>However,
>> >> for a lack of independent analyses for genres other than narrative we
>> >> cannot determine their function.
>> >
>> >Well said.  At the same time, we're working at two different levels.
>> >When you said in your book that I "reject the discourse analysis
>> >approach altogether" that was true in a sense, but in another sense
>> >it is a bit overstated.  I think there is a lot we can learn from
>> >discourse analysis; my problem with it is that it assumes certain
>> >things about the verb forms that are not yet in evidence.  Hence, I
>> >do my grammatical work down at the clause level, hoping to
>> >discover what are the basic building blocks of discourse units and
>> >patterns.  To do that, I seek the lowest common denominator in
>> >various usages of a verbal form, and look for a unified syntactic
>> >explanation for why a particular form can appear in discourse types
>> >x, y and z.  As far as I know, this has not been done to date in BH.
>>
>>      Great. If it is possible that would be the best. The use of the
>> form in different genres or kinds of discourse should derive from its
>> semantic characteristics.
>
>Here we go again with terminology.  I contend that verb forms such
>as the WP (and the simple past in English) don't have "semantic
>characteristics."  I mention that just to point out that, at times, we
>seem to be using the word "semantic" in two very different ways.
        It looks like it. Since there are different terms to refer to
meaning proprties which have to do with truth-conditions vs. meaning
properties which have to do with inferences and the like, why don't we use
them? The term "semantic" is preserved for the former, and the term
"pragmatic" for the latter. If this is confusing, we can spell it out:
"truth-conditional semantics" vs. "pragmatics".

Strange, I have been writing for two hours now, but I am not sure if I was
not chasing my tail.

Galia
>http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
>A Bible that's falling apart means a life that isn't.
>
>---
>You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: ghatav AT aall.ufl.edu
>To unsubscribe, forward this message to
>$subst('Email.Unsub')
>To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.