Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re[4]: The "times" of Isaiah

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: peter_kirk AT sil.org
  • To: <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re[4]: The "times" of Isaiah
  • Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 09:23:08 -0400


Dear Rolf,

Thank you for your clarification. I had not realised that you were
distinguishing between "meaning" and "semantic meaning", which I had
assumed to be synonymous. I accept that the YIQTOL of )MR is used
mainly in contexts where RT is after C, and perhaps that the QATAL is
used where RT is before C (though they may coincide in some cases).
But I don't think this takes us very far in describing the semantic
meanings of these different forms, which was, I thought, the goal of
this discussion. I fear we have been wasting our bytes. But sometimes
hot air clears the air, and it is good if we are understanding one
another better than before.

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Re[3]: The "times" of Isaiah
Author: furuli AT online.no at internet
Date: 25/08/1999 00:48


Dear Peter,

Our disagreement may be a matter of terminology. I have on this list
differentiated between "semantic meaning" ( which signify that the property
we ascribe to the form is uncancellable, e.g. the semantic meaning of "went"
is past tense) and "conversational pragmatic implicature" (which signify
that the property we ascribe to a particular verb is dependent on the
context, e.g. an English present participle). The epithet "semantic" shows
that I do not use "meaning" *alone* as signifying uncancellable properties.

When it comes to the "time" of a verb, I use the term "tense" when the
particular form *only* signifies an event either before or after the deictic
point; i.e. the temporal meaning is connected with the form and not with the
context. I use "past meaning", "present meaning", and "future meaning" when
I simply say that the RT of a particular verb in this particular context
comes before or after or coincides with C, without implying whether this is
connected with the form or with the context.

I therefore agree that the YIQTOLs of )MR are tenseless, and add that this
is the case with all other Hebrew verbs as well.


Regards
Rolf


Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo
<snip>





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page