Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: Re[4]: BH, Jouon on syntax?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Douglas L Kasten <doug.kasten AT juno.com>
  • To: dwashbur AT nyx.net
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re: Re[4]: BH, Jouon on syntax?
  • Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 16:25:50 -0600


Dave,

One more time. I'm going to snip some to to clear some clutter.

> > > Peter wrote:
> > > > I agree here with Doug, and want to add some further points
> > > addressed
> > > > to Dave:
> > > >
> > > > 1) If you define the most basic verb form as the one with
> fewest
> > > > affixes, well, in very many languages (arguably including
> Hebrew),
> > >
> > > > that is the imperative. But imperatives generally also have
> > > > non-standard word order, subject deletion and all sorts of
> special
> > >
> > > > features which make them unsuitable for judging basic word
> order.
> > > So I
> > > > think your methodology needs to be reexamined.
> > >
> > > That's not how I defined the most basic verb form.
> > It may not be how you defined the most basic form but was it not
> the
> > criterion by which you judged qatal the most basic form? That's
> > certainly my impression based on what you had written previously.
>
> Nope. That wasn't the criterion.

I reviewed the original posting and fail to see what you're up to if what
Peter and I wrote failed to address your criterion.
>
> > > > 2) I am also far from convinced that the qatal form is
> > > fundamentally
> > > > the most basic form; perhaps it only appears so because of the
>
> > > > accidental null form of the 3rd person singular masculine
> suffix.
> > > In
> > > > Arabic there is a final short a in the equivalent qatala form,
>
> > > which
> > > > is deleted in Hebrew by a purely phonological process, if I am
> not
> > >
> > > > mistaken.
> > >
> > > Then what would you say is the foundational form of the verb?
> > I don't want to sound like a schoolkid in a fight here, so forgive
> the
> > wording here, but "you started it". Peter is simply saying here
> that
> > he's not convinced qatal is the fundamentally the most basic form.
> It
> > was your assertion that it is; to play the skeptic about your
> assertion
> > does not require me or anyone else to have a positive assertion
> for the
> > 'most basic form'.
>
> I find simply saying "I disagree" to be quite unsatisfying; offering
> an
> alternative advances discussion much more effectively, at least
> IMO.

OK, I agree; however, offering reasons for disagreement IS quite helpful
even if another positive theory isn't offered in its place.
>
> > > > 3) For the sake of argument, let us look at clauses in which
> the
> > > verb
> > > > form is qatal. A typical Hebrew clause consists of a
> conjunction
> > > > (asyndeton is rare, and by far the most common conjunction is
> > > we-), a
> > >
> > > Rare in all possible types of ancient Hebrew, or just in the
> > > specialized type of literature that we work with? The nature of
> the
> > >
> > > corpus has to be considered as well.
> > Do you know what other types of ancient Hebrew we have to work
> with?! We
> > have what we have; it seems speculation beyond this doesn't really
> > advance things. Am I overlooking something?
>
> The question is, are we right in building a syntax of Hebrew based
> on material that is predominantly either narrative or poetry and
> saying "Since this is the most prevalent form in what we have, it
> must be the most fundamental" or do we need to do some
> extrapolation and try to determine, using principles of linguistic
> science (in this case, syntax, and in my case, syntax from a
> transformational approach) which forms are base-generated and
> which are derived? The former amounts to counting, little more.
> As a grammarian, I find that less than satisfactory.
>
I agree with you here.

> > I passed on the last round since I'm not 'up' on Peter's
> qatal-weqatal
> > theory anyway.
>
> Apparently I'm not either! :-)

Yet another agreement!

Dave, true confessions: I'm not going to anticipate a response to this
since we may have reached the end of fruitful dialog--you may have
thought that before this one ;-) I think a bigger part of our not seeing
eye to eye on things stems from your transformational leanings. I
studied linguistics and only studied transformational phonology, not
grammar. I didn't buy the presuppositions of the tradition as they apply
to grammar; there was not therefore for me any motivation to study a
system which seemed to me built on sand. Please, I respect you and my
'tg' friends who like the grammar. I mention this only to suggest that
we might be passing each other up on this particular point due to some a
prioris which don't necessarily have that much to do with Hebrew per se.

Non-transformationally yours (my X-bar just won't snap!),
Doug
>
> Dave Washburn
> 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: doug.kasten AT juno.com
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to
> $subst('Email.Unsub')
> To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.
>
>

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page