Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Use and Misuse of Waw in Verb Tenses

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
  • To: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Use and Misuse of Waw in Verb Tenses
  • Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 19:21:17 +0100

On 18/09/2004 06:45, Rolf Furuli wrote:

...

In Hebrew we have the verb $YR ("to sing"), which signals an action which is durative and dynamic (dynamic=change). Regardless of whether this root is used as an infinitive, a participle, a WAYYIQTOL, or as a YIQTOL these two properties are always the same. We can say that this root is marked for durativity and dynamicity, and these properties can never be taken away from this root. This is semantic (uncancellable) meaning, and the existence of this root (and thousands of other roots with similar characteristics) *proves* (is not only evidence of) that uncancellable semantic meaning can be pinpointed in a dead language.


A large number of examples of something cannot *prove* that there are zero counter-examples. It can of course provide very strong evidence for the proposition. But you can sample many millions of people and ask if they have walked on the moon; probably you will find that none have, but your conclusion from that that no humans have walked on the moon would be incorrect. Similarly, any number of examples cannot prove that there are zero examples of the durative and dynamic nature of $YR is uncancellable, and so on your terms strictly semantic.


The default interpretation of the root ML) is "to be full," which signals stativity. However, in clauses where this verb takes an object or there is an adverbial, the meaning can be "to fill.". This shows that stativity applied to ML) is not semantic meaning, but only conversational pragmatic implicature (it can change). In fact, any Hebrew verb whose default interpretation is stativity can have a fientive interpretation as well in other contexts. Thus, stativity in Hebrew is not a semantic property.


I see your point here, and accept that stativity is not semantic at least on your definition.


The important question in connection with this discussion is whether it is possible to find semantic meaning in the WAYYIQTOL and the YIQTOL, and in that case, whether this semantic meaning is similar or different. However, that semantic meaning can be pinpointed in a dead language is beyond question.

I do not accept this last sentence. I do not see any methodolgy by which uncancellability can be proved in a dead language, especially where there is a limited corpus using a very limited subset of the probable registers of the language.

--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page