Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: WEQATAL vs. QATAL statistics

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Rodney K. Duke" <dukerk AT appstate.edu>
  • To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: WEQATAL vs. QATAL statistics
  • Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 08:59:11 -0400


Rolf wrote:
<snip>

>
> What I tried to put across, and which you criticize above, is that it is a
> contradiction of terms to claim that a particular form is a tense in a
> tense-less language. The context of my words was the possibility of proving
> that WEQATAL and QATAL have a different semantic meaning by a statistics
> showing a significant difference in the time reference of the two. Because
> a verb can have *any* time reference in a tenseless language (and the time
> reference therefore is not distinctive), from a *semantic* point view (as a
> means do distinguish semantically between two forms which are graphically
> different), a past, present, perfect, and future referense represent
> "APPLES", "APPLES", "APPLES", and "APPLES". But from a pragmatic point of
> view (to find out why there is such a significant difference in time
> reference) they are "APPLE", "BANANA", "ORANGE", and "CUMQUAT". I wonder
> why it is so difficult for you folks to differentiate between pragmatic
> and semantic arguments. Even if one does not like the model of Broman
> Olsen, such a distinction is elementary linguistics.

<snip>
Dear Rolf,

I am responding to the next to the last sentence in the above paragraph
in which you seem to be
expressing some frustration with us "folk." So, this is a personal response.
I have appreciated
your posts. For the most part I do understand what you are saying, although
I'm not sure if you
are correct--just because I don't believe that I have the expertise to
thoroughly critique it. I
think it particularly significant, as I believe you have pointed out, that
the "traditional" view
has been defended in a circular manner in a couple of ways: 1) assumptions
about tense and aspect
in Hebrew have been used to develop a system of the Hebrew verbal system
which is accepted as
"proof" of those assumptions, while confusing pragmatics and semantics, as
well as tense, time and
aspect; and 2) assumptions about the Hebrew verbal system were carried over
to the development of
grammars of other Semitic languages, the systemization of which is now used
to "prove" the Hebrew
system (e.g. the discussion of short and long prefixed conjugation). (I wish
that DeCaen, who has
done research on the historical development of Hebrew and Semitic grammars
would enter the
discussion on this second point.) I have not yet seen someone defend the
"traditional" system by
starting "fresh" with clear distinctions between pragmatics and semantics and
with clear
distinctions of what is meant by time, tense, and aspect as you have tried to
do.
I have also been most impressed with your personal quality of responding
in a gracious and
scholarly manner to those whose posts to you have been patronizing and rude.
So, please be
encouraged. There are those of us who are reading the exchanges that you are
engaged in and are
appreciating them.
--
Rodney K. Duke
Dept. of Phil. & Rel., Appalachian State Univ., Boone, NC 28608
(O) 828-262-3091, (FAX) 828-262-6619, dukerk AT appstate.edu






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page