Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Rolf Furuli" <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Peter,

I do not want to participate in any discussion with you, not because I have 
any
nagative feelings against you personally, or because I doubt your
intellectual
capacity or your knowledge, but simply because we live in two completely
different worlds as far as linguistics and linguistic theory are concerned.

I will illustrate the situation with the following German example (I do
not know a similar English example). Someone says,  "Heute ist
strahlendes Wetter." How would people interpret this clause? It is an
unambiguous
statement indicating that the weather is excellent, probably with the sun
shining from a blue sky. One
person could say, "I think it means that it is raining." Why? "Because the
one who uttered the statement could view each raindrop as a "Wasserstrahl"
(a squirt or jet of water).
This interpretation is not completely impossible, but it is extremely forced
and unnatural.

When I discuss matters with someone, I accept criticisms and
counterarguments, and even encourage such, but I expect a minimum level of
agreement regarding the
basics of linguistics and linguistic imterpretation. In many cases I have
not found that with you, but you have often used arguments of the
"Wasserstrahl" type, and therefore I see absolutely no purpose of 
participating
in any discussion with you. But I am very surprised that you do not
realize that you are not able to present my viewpoints correctly to this
forum as long as you have not read my dissertation. That is the reason why I
feel
compelled to write this post, because I see the need to correct some of your
misrepresentations.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
To: "Biblical Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 6:04 PM
Subject: [b-hebrew] Basic observations on WAYYIQTOL


> I would like to bring some sanity to the recent discussions of WAYYIQTOL
> forms by explaining the situation as I understand it:
>
> 1) The traditional understanding of WAYYIQTOL is that when two or more
> WAYYIQTOLs follow one another in the text (with no other clause types
> intervening) they refer to a sequence of events - also that a WAYYIQTOL
> following a stative or continuing action (verbless or YIQTOL) clause
> refers to an event taking place while that state or continuing action is
> continuing.
>
> 2) There are some clear cases where this understanding needs to be
> adjusted. Certain scholars have put forward modified rules for WAYYIQTOL
> which fit a larger proportion of cases. Nevertheless, there remain a
> relatively small number of WAYYIQTOLs which cannot be sequential and do
> not fit any modified rules.
>
> 3) For some scholars, such as Rolf and Dave as I understand their wordk,
> this rather small number of exceptions is a problem. For they hold to
> theoretical models according to which exceptions to semantic rules are
> not possible. So, they are forced either to look for more and more
> intricate modifications to the rules to fit all of the data, or else, as
> Rolf has almost done, they end up denying that there are any semantic
> distinctions between Hebrew verb forms, and claiming that everything is
> pragmatic.

1) You have completely missed the point! It is not true that " a rather
small number of exceptions is a problem". In my work, all the verbs (save a
few with textual problems and a few missed ones) of classical Hebrew have
been analyzed. And the conclusions drawn from this analysis has to do with
about
80,000 verbs, and not with a small number of exceptions.

2) It is not true that my study has been based on "theoretical models
according to which exceptions to semantic rules are not possible". For
example, as far
tense is concerned, I have used the same principle as many other scholars.
Waltke & O`Connor (p. 461) comments on the view that classical Hebrew has
tenses, and says: "The theory has, however, tremendous weaknesses...How can
forms each of which "represent" all three English major tenses have a
primarily temporal value?" Moran used the same principle in his study of the
Amarna tablets,
and Mari Broman Olsen and Stanley Porter have used the principle in the
study of Greek verbs.

3) It is not true that exceptions to semantic meaning cannot be accepted.
However, I do not accept a situation where hundreds of examples militate
against a theory, and where these examples are brushed aside by saying: "We
must accept exceptions." I accept exceptions when they can be explained as
special cases. And in this respect I am on the same track as Bernard Comrie.
To say that I have "to look for more and more intricate
modifications to the rules to fit all of the data" is completely nonsense!
My approach is not dependent on semantic rules, but the conclusions are 
drawn
on the basis of the analysis of the data.

4) I have never denied, and will never deny that "there are semantic
distinctions between between Hebrew verb forms," and I have never claimed
that "everything is pragmatic".  To the contrary, I argue that there is a
semantic distinction
between the perfective and the imperfective aspect. However, I also argue
that in many contexts this semantic distinction is not made visible (e.g. in
stative situations) for the audience. Because the requirement of precision
is not high in all situations both aspects can be used without any
discernable difference in meaning. In other context the semantic distinction
is important.

In your paragraph 3) all your claims regarding my work are incorrect!


> 4) For others, such as Yitzhak and myself (although for rather different
> reasons) and probably in practice the majority of scholars, it is to be
> expected that even the best semantic rules will have some exceptions.
> For language is intrinsically dynamic and variable, and anyway the texts
> we have are not pure. We are not making any strong claims for the
> meaning of WAYYIQTOL which can be falsified by a few counter-examples,
> we are only outlining general meanings of verb forms which may be
> cancelled in specific contexts. The precise meaning in each case is
> determined not only by the verb form but by how it works in the context.

If paragraph 4) relates to me, you are again turning the situation upside
down. A main point of my disseratation is excellently expressed by your
last clause: "The precise meaning in each case is determined not only by the
verb form but by how it works in the context." That is the reason why I
point out hundreds of examples where QATALs signal exactly the same meaning
as YIQTOLs, and that is the reason why I point out scores of examples (there
are literally hundreds) where only one of the aspects can be used to express
a particular thought.

As I said above, I agree with your statement that "the best semantic rules
will have some exceptions". But that does not invalidate the distinction
between semantics and pragmatics. Most linguists accept that there is a
distinction between Semantics and pragmatics, but how they will apply this
principle on the verbal system of a dead language will of course vary.

I view your statement in the past that my dissertation is valuless as
amusing rather than insulting, because everybody will understand the quality
of such a statement when it is made by one who has not read the source. But
I hope that you in the future will refrain from presenting my viewpoints to
others as long as you have not read the source.



> Dave, Rolf and Yitzhak, I hope I have been fair to you here.
>
>
> --
> Peter Kirk
> peter AT qaya.org (personal)
> peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
> http://www.qaya.org/

Best regards

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo