Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ausra Pazera <apazera AT yahoo.co.uk>]

--- Greg Doudna <gdoudna AT earthlink.net> wrote: > 
> Rolf, thanks for your answers. Comments below.
> 
> > Because we have no informants, the task to define
> the Hebrew conjugations
> > is a real challange. The greatest problem is that
> to substantiate a model,
> > we need clearcut examples which must fulfill many
> requirements, and
> because
> > of the strict requirements, the examples *must* be
> few. For instance, when
> 
> Yes, the issue is substantiating a model. I am still
> not understanding
> entirely:
> could you spell out the kinds of structures that
> would falsify your model,
> if they were to exist (but which you have checked
> and don't exist)?
> 
> > Then back to aspect. The reason why the three
> mentioned scholars in the
> 50s
> > and 60s could not subsume the Hebrew conjugations
> under the term aspect,
> > was that they (and all others) had a primitive
> view of the nature of
> aspect
> > (which many still have). Today we have more
> linguistic tools at our
> > disposition, and I venture to say that the method
> I use for the analysis
> of
> > Hebrew verbs is the most detailed an promising
> that ever has been
> developed.
> >
> > Aspect is concerned with the internal time of
> events, that is, the
> > relationship between event time and reference
> time. The reason why I think
> > that the Hebrew conjugations are aspects, is that
> it makes sense to
> analyze
> > them by the help of the two kinds of non-deictic
> time and the three
> > parameters which regulate the relationship between
> the two kinds of time.
> > Not only does an analysis make sense, but two
> distinct patterns are seen.
> > This is not the case with any other analysis, and
> in addition, because PAM
> 
> > is quite universal, and the P and M can be
> eliminated, everything points
> in
> > the direction that the conjugations represent
> aspects.
> 
> Would you comment on a fourth alternative (not that
> I'm advocating it): it
> draws
> on Speiser long ago who argued biblical Hebrew was
> an amalgamation of
> two systems. I probably don't have Speiser
> understood right, but no matter:
> the point is -- hypothetically -- it could be simple
> historical accident
> that
> there are two conjugation systems, and *nothing* is
> being marked by form,
> i.e. its all pidgin with meaning understood from
> helping words (and some
> conventions or patterns have evolved).
> 
> That is, the elimination of P and M I am not sure
> how much
> of a positive argument that is for A.
> 
> Could you cite examples where the waw-consecutive
> expectation is
> interrupted in such a way as to illustrate the
> intrusion of considerations
> related to your aspect considerations--in those
> cases in which it does
> matter for meaning?
> 
> > As to patterns, conative situations are only
> expressed by
> YIQTOL/WAYYIQTOL,
> > and in situations like "When Peter entered (simple
> past), Roy was reading
> > (imperfective), 

____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie