Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re[2]: WAW the conjunction

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[2]: WAW the conjunction
  • Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 21:28:00 -0500


Dear Rolf,

Just a few points in response to a part of yours to Alviero.

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Re: WAW the conjunction
Author: <furuli AT online.no> at Internet
Date: 11/01/2000 06:00


Dear Alviero,

Thank you for your answers to my questions. See my comments below:

<snip>

RF
Your comments to point 6 reveal in my mind an important weakness with your
method, namely circularity. I heartily agree that "the 'real course of
events' as such remains outside the verbforms and outside the text". A
writer can present the same complex event as a fact (I find "point"
problematic and would rather use Comrie's "blob") or as something going on.
My point is: How do we know which view is signaled? If we start with "good
texts" as you say, and we find that several WEQATALs express habitualness,
we cannot at the outset know whether the reason is semantic (habitualness
*is* a characteritic of WEQATAL) or pragmatic (habitualness is a function
of the Aktionsart of the verbs, the context, and our knowledge of the
world). The problem of your method is that it does not tell us *how* we can
differentiate between semantic and pragmatic factors...

PK: But does YOUR method, Rolf, tell us how we can differentiate?
Well, you seem to be able to say that many factors are pragmatic
rather than semantic, or that they cannot be proved to be semantic.
But I still do not understand how even in principle such factors could
be proved to be semantic, in a dead language. I would like to see such
an explanation, if possible with an example of a factor in Hebrew
which you can prove to be semantic. If you cannot answer this
objection to your objections, you are open to the charge that you are
asking your opponents to do what is impossible in principle, and also
condemning your own studies to the ultimate failure to determine any
semantic factors within the Hebrew verb system.

<snip>

RF
What I asked for was one example where we on the basis of the verb *alone*,
without any preconceived ideas can see that a WEQATAL is habitual. Your
examples does not fulfill this request. Let us look at your first example,
Exodus 18:25.26. There can be no doubt that the course of the events of the
judging is habitual, but how can we know that the verb form signals
this?...

PK: Good question, how indeed can we know that this is true OR false?
If your method can determine neither truth nor falsehood for such
questions, it is not very helpful.

PK: Meanwhile, let Prof. Niccacci have his own arguments, which are
not circular (as long as he argues from examples with a clear context
to uncertain examples) even if they are not semantic according to your
theory. He finds that certain verb forms are regularly used in certain
contexts, and not used in certain other contexts. Even if this cannot
tell us the semantic meaning of the verb forms, it does tell us
something quite significant and useful. For example, if we find that
WEQATAL is generally used in the past habitual contexts but never in
the past in contexts which cannot be habitual, this surely helps us to
interpret an occurrence of WEQATAL in a case in the past where
habituality is otherwise ambiguous.

Peter Kirk





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page