Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Semantics of paradigms

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Vadim Cherny" <VadimCherny AT mail.ru>
  • To: "Dr. Joel M. Hoffman" <joel AT exc.com>, <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Semantics of paradigms
  • Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 14:12:30 +0300


> >verbs which he thinks inconsistent with the paradigmal meaning (such
> >as an active verb in niphal). Then we would consider if perhaps the
> >semantics is different in other languages.
>
> Examples from Modern Hebrew are plenty. NIZKARTI ("I was thinking
> about") does not mean "someone remembered about me," even though the
> niphal is generally the passive of kal.

No, nizcarti in MH correctly means "I recalled" which is completely
congruent with semantics of the paradigm.

> M'SUKAN ("dangerous") does
> not mean "endangered," even though Pu'al is almost always the passive
> of Pi'el.
>

Can we stick to BH?

> The question here is one of methodology. Is the default assumption
> that all human languages basically share common elements? (I think
> so, along with most other modern linguists). Or is the default
> assumption that ancient Hebrew is fundamentally different than all the
> other languages about which we have concrete evidence? It seems to me
> that both common sense and Occam's razor would militate against the
> latter approach.

How many non-Semitic languages are oout there with rigid root system and no
excessiveness? Even in Russian, aspect affixes more or less mandate the
semantics.

Vadim Cherny





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page