Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>]

On 16/08/2005 22:11, Rolf Furuli wrote:

> ...
>
>
> The terms "meaning" and "semantic" are used in many different ways in the
> literature discussing Semitic languages, and the rule is that the terms are
> used without any definition. In the general sense "semantic" need not mean
> more than "meaning," which is a very ambiguous word. Therefore, I use the
> term "semantic meaning" in the technical sense of a characteristic (an
> intrinsic meaning) that never can be cancelled or changed.
>  

And this is the meaning of "semantic" which I was using when describing 
Rolf's theories, for example when I named him as one of those who "hold 
to theoretical models according to which exceptions to semantic rules 
are not possible." Perhaps I should have written "rules of semantic 
meaning", but isn't that an oxymoron?

But, Rolf, you are continuing to contradict yourself. Earlier you wrote 
"It is not true that exceptions to semantic meaning cannot be accepted." 
Now you write, as you have written before, "I use the term "semantic 
meaning" in the technical sense of a characteristic (an intrinsic 
meaning) that never can be cancelled or changed." Well, if something can 
never be cancelled or changed, how is it possible to have exceptions to it?

> Typical examples are verbs that are marked for telicity, such as  BR) (to
> create). The end of the action is conceptually included in telic verbs, and
> these words can never loose the  notion of a conceptually included end. This
> was discussed earlier, and no one has so far
> shown that the telicity of verbs marked for telicity can be cancelled.
>  

Well, I have shown this for the English verb "create", which has 
idiomatic uses which are not telic. In Hebrew, the most you can say is 
that within a limited corpus of 53 instances of this verb there are no 
cases which are demonstrably non-telic - although I might wonder about 
Isaiah 45:8, 57:19, for is there any end to "creating" salvation, 
righteousness and praise?

> ...
>
> In connection with tense in English and Norwegian my words about exceptions
> can be illustrated. To accept exceptions does not mean an acceptance of the
> cancellability of tense, but it means that verbs with past and future tense
> can be used in ways that can be called special cases. An example which is
> rather amusing is the Norwegian lady who visited some friends in the UK.
> They had a small daughter, and the Norwegian lady said, "Oh, she was so
> cute". The mother raised her eyebrows and said, "Was? Isn`t she cute?" In
> Norwegian we often in polite language use past tense where English speakers
> would use present reference, We often say, "This was good coffee." when
> English speakers would have said, "This is good coffee." Does this show that
> past tense is not fully grammacalized in Norwegian? Not at all! All grown
> Norwegian speakers know that "was" is past tense, but its use in polite
> speech is a special case. There are also many other special cases, such as
> hypothetical conditional clauses etc.
>  

Well, this seems to me like a very strange definition of 
"uncancellable". All of the Norwegians I have met have been very polite 
people, and so I would expect all of their speech to be polite, so that 
in no sense is polite speech a special case. It is perhaps a specific 
register of the language which may need to be described differently from 
other registers. But within this register it is clear that the "past 
tense" form can be used with present reference. So this is a specific 
use of this form. And it shows that the "past tense" is not a tense 
according to your strict definitions, but that perhaps the verb form has 
several different uses one of which is as a true past tense. This is 
just like the English present, which has a special "historic present" 
use with past reference. I suppose basically it shows that none of these 
forms are as fully grammaticalised as you seem to assume. Indeed, I 
suspect that no verb forms are actually completely grammaticalised in 
any language. This is the sort of thing I was writing to Dave, that verb 
and other forms cannot be constrained to fixed and simply expressed 
rules which are always obeyed.

> When I analyzed Hebrew and looked for past tense, I was open for "noise" in
> the material, or exceptions. For example, I used different tests to find out
> whether the 998 WAYYIQTOLs with non-past references were special cases, and
> therefore could not be used as evidence against a past-tense interpretation
> of WAYYIQTOL. The results of these tests were that these WAYYIQTOLs occur in
> normal situations and contexts. This means that I accept that exceptions
> (special cases) can occur. These exceptions in no way cancel the semantic
> meaning of a linguistic unit, they only appear to do so. Thus, I both claim
> that semantic meaning is unceancellable, and that exceptions of the nature I
> have explained, can occur.
>  

Well, this sounds like Humpty Dumpty saying that "uncancellable" means 
something other than its clear dictionary definition, that in fact the 
meaning component can be cancelled as long as you can find some reason 
for it to be cancelled.

> ... When someone
> denies that the Hebrew verb BR) is marked for telicity, i.e. denies that an
> intrinsic concept of a goal or an end is a part of its lexical meaning, and
> that this telic concept cannot be cancelled, then I view a discussion with
> that person as a waste of time. There simply is no common ground.
>
>  
What if that person, like me, asks simply that you prove, rather than 
assume and assert, that BR) is always and uncancellably telic? Is there 
an end to the creation of righteousness?

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



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.9/72 - Release Date: 14/08/2005