Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Douglas L Kasten <doug.kasten AT juno.com>]

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]