Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

> If I say "I will decisionize the problem", I have created a new verb, by
> adding a verbaliser to a noun. Why is it different if I say "I will decision
> the problem", or "yesterday I decisioned the problem" - which shows that
> this new word has the morphology of a verb. Surely the only difference is
> that in the second case the verbaliser is a zero morpheme. No need to wait
> until it catches on, it is a verb from the first time it is used. 

This is an area where we have disagreed before.  IMO it doesn't 
become a verb simply because somebody uses it incorrectly.  I 
actually picked up this example many years ago from an editorial 
making fun of how Alexander Haig butchered the English language 
in this an similar ways.  Peter and I have disagreed before on the 
question of whether there is such a thing as "bad" grammar.  In my 
view, "decisioned" is an error.  It takes a lot more processing by 
the hearer to realize "Oh, he's using that as a verb" and parse the 
sentence, and even then the hearer comes away thinking "He 
doesn't know much about English grammar."  The word isn't "valid" 
(however one chooses to use that term) simply because someone 
coins it in violation of accepted English grammar.

So I
> disagree with your "A verb being used as a name still retains its character
> as a verb, even though it fills a "nominal" slot" (notice how your whole
> sentence has become a nominal qualified by a possessive adjective). It
> really is not that simple.

Actually it is.  There's an elided object and relativizer in your 
sentence that the reader implicitly understands because of the use 
of the quotation marks: *So I disagree with [your statement that 
says] X" etc.  This is why I greatly prefer generative grammar over 
functional grammar: it has much greater explanatory adequacy.

> To bring this back to Hebrew, you can't do this directly there I guess,
> though words like ZAQEN can function as both adjectives and verbs.

Don't the lexicons recognize these as homonyms?  I'm afraid 
you're trying too hard, Peter.  It is very possible that in 'ehyeh 'a$er 
'ehyeh we have an instance of "bad" Hebrew grammar.  I don't think 
this is part of Dan's view (which is what we're actually discussing), 
but it's a possibility and could explain how the second 'ehyeh and 
the next occurrence could function as a name even though it's a 
verb.  We have a similar example in the Greek of the NT.  I don't 
recall the reference right offhand, but someone comes to Jesus and 
says "If you can, please do this."  Jesus replies, TO EI DUNH, 
which roughly comes out "As for your 'if you can', it's done."  This 
puts a definite article on a conditional clause.  It gets the point 
across, but it's a violation of Greek grammar.  Revelation is full of 
such examples.  The first chapter, I think it is, includes the clause 
APO HO WN.  APO is a preposition that takes a genitive object, 
but HO WN is a nominative.  Again, bad grammar.  "Decisioned" is 
in the same category as "bad" English.  Violations of accepted 
grammatical patterns happen all the time and they're a fact of life.  
It's also a fact of life that they are perceived as such by hearers.  
Obviously grammatical rules aren't carved in stone, and hence we 
have diachronic linguistics.  But from a synchronic point of view, we 
have to deal with the fact - yes it is a fact - that "decisioned" is a 
noun that has been incorrectly morphed into a verbal slot.  Bringing 
the discussion back to where we began, in the case of 'ehyeh we 
have a verb that may be occupying a nominal slot.  That doesn't 
make it a morphological or grammatical nominal.  It makes it an 
oddity, which is probably why we're having so much trouble with it.


Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
"You just keep thinking, Butch.  That's what you're good at."