Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Basic observations on WAYYIQTOL

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] Basic observations on WAYYIQTOL
  • Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 23:42:21 +0100

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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page