Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Peter Kirk" <Peter_Kirk AT sil.org>]

But YLD is not punctual in Genesis 38:28 - an illustration of my cotention
that most, maybe all, alleged punctuals are only punctual because the events
are not usually being looked at closely enough to see their internal
structure.

I think "find" has two meanings in modern English. Colloquially at least, it
can also mean "search for", as in "finding one's way back". Thus "I am
finding a tomato" could mean "I am looking for a tomato and about to find
one". But I would accept that apart from this rather special usage this verb
can probably be considered punctual. But then I wonder if there is any
punctual verb, in English, which does not have this sort of polysemy in
colloquial language. Thus "I am X-ing" would be a general colloquial idiom
for "I am about to X" or "I am trying to X", where X is any punctual verb.
This certainly works for verbs like "die". But perhaps someone can correct
me with an example of an English punctual verb for which this does work.

Perhaps something rather similar happens with Hebrew punctual verbs.

Peter Kirk

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kimmo Huovila" <kimmo.huovila AT helsinki.fi>
To: "Biblical Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2000 7:52 PM
Subject: Re: Linguistic assumptions


<snip>

> YLD ("give birth"), PTX ("open") etc. as examples. If we could
> take for granted that these and similar verbs *were* punctual, we would
> have a fine tool to find the nature of Hebrew aspects.

True. Punctuals are important for the study of aspect.

> WAYYIQTOLs of such
> verbs would for instance be strong arguments in favor of the view that
this
> form either represents past tense or the perfective aspect.

Or is aspectually neutral. But none of this would apply if there is an
iterative sense with the WAYYQTOL form.

<snip>

I have not studied the Hebrew verb enough to argue for this from Hebrew,
but some living languages may be easier to use here (with the usual
caveats). I assume English will work. I assume that 'find' is an English
verb that does not show aspectual polysemy (is always punctual, except
in special constructions like 'find one's way back'). Perhaps the
natives on the list will correct me, if I am wrong. We can see where
this assumption will take us if we assume that punctuality is
uncancelable.

(1) I am finding tomatoes.
Because 'find' is punctual, and the verbal form is progressive, the
event must be iterated in (1). Therefore I find one tomato after
another.

(2) I am finding a tomato.
In sentence (2) it is not quite as easy to find a natural
interpretation, but perhaps this could be paraphrased as 'I keep findind
a certain tomato over and over again'. However, there must be iteration
(if 'find' is punctual).

(3) *I am finding a tomato once. The theory predicts that this is
impossible, as iteration is excluded by 'once'. If punctuality could be
canceled, this sentence should be OK. This is where I feel my theory
makes better predictions than your theory as I have understood it so
far.

Would natives agree with the predictions my theory makes of these
sentences? If so, I think I have proved that punctuality is not always
cancelable. In those cases where it is 'cancelable', we are dealing with
aspectual polysemy (like Peter's sentence 'the cable was snapping for
two nanoseconds') or aspectual nesting (where it is not really canceled
at all). I leave it for you and the list to judge which theory makes
more accurate predictions about the data.

(If you are interested in a more thorough exposition of aspectual
nesting, see my thesis.)

Kimmo

---
You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: Peter_Kirk AT sil.org
To unsubscribe, forward this message to
$subst('Email.Unsub')
To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.