Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] VERBS

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Rolf Furuli" <furuli AT online.no>
  • To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] VERBS
  • Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 18:17:53 +0100

Dear Joel,

See my comments below.

----- Original Message ----- From: "Dr. Joel M. Hoffman" <joel AT exc.com>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Cc: <furuli AT online.no>
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] VERBS


>I would like to use telicity as a example.
The book "A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics" 4th ed, by David
Crystal (2001) says that telicity refers "to an event where the activity has
a clear terminal point. Telic verbs include fall, kick, and make". Let us
look at the Hebrew equivalents for two of these verbs, namely, BR) (create)
and NPL (fall). I am quite sure that Hebrew children knew that the end was

Looking at the ancient Hebrew isn't useful, because we don't know the
answer. Rather, I think, we should look at English, and see that the
claim doesn't hold up. Based on that, I think we have to assume that
it doesn't hold up in Hebrew, either (or, indeed, in any language of
which I am aware).

Are you really saying that we cannot study Hebrew in its own right as far as Aktionsart and other characteristics are concerned? Would one of your students have passed his exam if he made a claim regarding Hebrew, and when you asked for examples, he could not give any, but referred to English?

Regarding "fall": "The Devil created an endless pit and Korah fell
forever, never hitting bottom." (Please forgive the fanciful content
of my example.) Your assertion

By the use of this example you show that you have not fully understood what telicity means, because your clause is an excellent example of the uncancellability of telicity; the very opposite of what you intended. The characteristic telicity means that the end of an action *conceptually* is included in the verb`s meaning/Aktionsart, and not necessarily that this end was reached.

For example, the word BN) (build) is marked for durativity and dynamicity, but not for telicity. However, if we add an object, we can get a telic verb phrase, as in "build a house". Please look at the clause below.

"Last Year Al started to build a house, but he never finished it."

It is clear that the end was not reached, but does that mean that the telicity of "started to build a house" is blotted out? Not at all. True, in your example about the devil the goal was not reached, but NPL in this example explicitly is telic, because, by using "never hit the bottom" you imply a goal for the verb which was not reached. Even if you only had said "Korah fell for ever," the cancellability was not blotted out, because there is nothing in the clause saying that the normal meaning of NPL was changed.

What you need to do to demonstrate that no Aktionsart characteristic is uncancellable is not to find different kinds of strange and unnatural examples, but rather to demonstrate conclusively that the Aktionsart of a durative verb is changed to punctiliar, that the Aktionsart of a dynamic verb is changed to stative, and the Aktionsart of a telic verb is changed to non-telic.

For example, what about BR) (create), can examples be found where a goal is not *conceptually* included? And what about BN), can punctiliar examples of this verb be found?



something was made. And when NPL was used, every child knew that the person
or thing falling would not remain in the air, but would meet some kind of
end.

just seems wrong.


So I ask: Are there situations where the telicity of BR) and NPL can be
blotted out or changed by the context?

Yes. That's my point.

-Joel


Best regards

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page