Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Rolf,
> Let us use the English present participle as an example. The core of its
> semantic meaning is "ongoing action". It can be used as a verb, adjective
> or substantive - this is function - but it's semantic meaning is unchanged.

I have to disagree.  The core of the English present participle is
description.  It cannot be used absolutely as a verb, only as a
periphrastic, and its function is always to modify something,
whether a noun, a verb or a clause.  The fact that you see it as
"ongoing action" and I see it as "description" illustrates how
tenuous your "semantic meaning" or "uncancellable meaning" is.
In addition, continuing to try and describe grammatical functions in
semantic terms only muddies the waters; it is not until we look at
syntax and semantics separately that we can develop a unified
view of the various uses of the various verbal forms.  Speaking of
the "semantic meaning" of a grammatical form won't get us
anywhere, IMO.

> It can even be used as implicature. A friend of mine who completed her
> Ph.D. had the following clause in her corpus: "crossing the floor, he
> opened the cupboard". Even though the meaning was that he opened the
> cupboard after having crossed the floor, the semantic meaning of the
> participle was not changed, and this seemingly contrafactual use could be
> explained pragmatically.

This is actually "bad" English.  Proper English would say "having
crossed the floor, he opened the cupboard."  The present participle
makes it sound as though he took hold of the cupboard door and
opened it while he was still halfway across the room and walking
toward the cupboard.  I would file this one under Randall's
exceptions, most of which fall into the category of "bad" grammar.
It's hard to build an understanding of a verbal form based on its
misuse.


Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
"Éist le glór Dé."