Biblical Hebrew Forum

["C. Stirling Bartholomew" <jacksonpollock AT earthlink.net>]

David,

Thanks for the substantive reply, a few comments ...

On 9/27/04 6:13 PM, "David Kummerow" <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com> wrote:

> Your question relates to the analysis of BH as a head- or dependent-marked
> language. The problem is compounded because BH is a so-called pro-drop
> language, ie independent pronouns are not obligatory as apposed to English,
> for example. 

What, therefore, does one say about "pleonastic" pronouns are they
pleonastic?

Gen. 36:8 ... (&w hw) )dwM

1Kings 18:39 ... yhwh hw) h)lhyM

If we reduce these to English SVO propositions then the pronoun looks like
it serves no syntactical purpose. I think calling these "pleonastic"
probably reveals a weakness in the analysis/methodology.

Mistah Kurtz--he dead.
   (T.S. Eliot, The Hollow Men from J.Conrad, Heart of Darkness)



>Perhaps a better way forward than the "appositional" approach
> is the one put forward by Matthew Anstey (pp.24-26):
> 
> http://home.hum.uva.nl/fg/working_papers/WPFG77.pdf
> 
> The position advanced here is that both the NP argument *and* the verbal
> dependent-marking refer.

To the same referent I assume. They are co-referential.


>Have a read also of pp.226-232 of William Croft's,
> Radical Construction Grammar.
> 
> One of the benifits of the approach is that in the case of pronominal
> reference, pronouns are then not so much "dropped" but "added".

Yes, the notion of a "missing pronoun" sounds suspiciously like the
theoretical tail wagging the textual dog.

> Unfortunately, however, there is yet to be a serious study of the syntax,
> semantics, and pragmatics of independent personal pronouns in BH - which is
> why I have chosen it as the topic for my dissertation!

It is not really unfortunate, it gave you a topic to write about ;-)

Thanks again,
Clay Bartholomew