Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Dave Washburn" <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

Doug,
> 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.

Hopefully I've answered to your satisfaction by now.  In an off-list 
conversation with another list participant, I have realized that 
"basic" is probably not the best term for it, but have yet to come up 
with a better one.

> > > > > 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.

Agreed.  Knowing how much we don't know is profitable...

> > > > > 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 ;-)  

Not at all.  I've been enjoying our discussion.

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.

I think you're right.  Perhaps off-list you can help me understand 
your reasons for rejecting tg?  In any case, if you feel we are at an 
impasse, I'm happy to agree to disagree and move on.  Just know 
that I really have been deriving a lot of good from your comments 
etc. and you have been forcing me to think some things through a 
lot more than I have up to this point.  So I owe you some thanks.

> Non-transformationally yours (my X-bar just won't snap!),

LOL!

Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
A Bible that's falling apart means a life that isn't.