Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re[2]: Linguistic puzzle

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: peter_kirk AT sil.org
  • To: <manstey AT portal.ca>
  • Cc: <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re[2]: Linguistic puzzle
  • Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 23:56:45 -0400



Given that the intended audience is those with limited Hebrew and
maybe limited technical English, I would go for no.4 "do", as the
concept of direct object is easily understood. I hope this will be
distinguished by case or something else from the word "do".

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Re: Linguistic puzzle
Author: manstey AT portal.ca at internet
Date: 09/06/1999 10:34


Gday all,

Since the first-prize for the linguistic puzzle we posed has not yet been
claimed, I thought I'd update you all on the leading contenders so far, to
see if this may stimulate some more creative responses. There are currently
five contenders:

1. tm transitivity marker
2. ve verbal extension marker
3. na non-agent marker
4. do direct object marker
5. am affectedness marker

Some notes would be appropriate. Our original choice was tm - transitivity
marker, which most people associated with verbal valency (ie transitive
verbs)
rather than the more technical idea of the efficiency of transferring the
effect of the verbal action to the nominal unit. So we are happy to ditch
this
since it seems a bit misleading. Choice 2 has been suggested since it covers
all the cases where 'et introduces verbal complements and adjuncts, direct
objects and indirect objects and adverbials. This is an improvement in our
view on the traditional definite direct object option. Choice 3 was suggested
by Michael Malessa who is writing his dissertation on 'et. His idea is
similar
to choice 1, and Michael pointed out three examples where 'et is not a verbal
extension marker. Both choice 1 and 3 have been influenced by an article by
W.
Randall Garr, "Affectedness, Aspect and Biblical 'et", Zeitschrift für
Althebraistik 4 (1991), 119-134. Several people thought it best to stick
with
the traditional direct object tag, since it is too troublesome to cover all
the exceptions to this, and there are not enough to warrant a change. This is
choice 4. We have come up with option 5 to replace option 1, as a more
readily-understandable version of what 1, 2, and 3 are aiming for. But we
would also like people's feedback on this option.

But the bets are still on if anyone else wants to contribute. If you missed
the original problem, the goal is to find a two-letter abbreviation that
captures whatever it is that is present in (most if not) all of the 7000+
uses of 'et in the MT.

With regards,
Matthew Anstey
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
on behalf of Summer Institute of Linguistics.
BART (Biblical Analysis and Research Tool) Software Development
Carl Follingstad, Coordinator cfollingstad AT compuserve.com
Todd Hoatson, Programmer Todd_Hoatson AT sil.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


---
You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: [Peter_Kirk AT sil.org]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to
leave-b-hebrew-14207U AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page