Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Dear David,

Please see below.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Kummerow" <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 10:57 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Hebrew grammar, (was Zech 6:8)


> Hi Rolf,
>
> I can't take too much time as I'm very busy at the moment - and I don't
> want to get involved in another of those forays disputing whether the BH
> verbal system is tense-, aspect-, or mood-prominent! Anyway, some of my
> thoughts below.

I respect your wish not to discuss the possible TAM of classical Hebrew.
This was not my intention, but since Herman said he did not like the term
"tense" applied to Hebrew, and you said the term was OK with you. I wanted
to clarify the terminology.
> > Dear David,
> > Allow me to ask a few questions.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "David Kummerow" <farmerjoeblo at hotmail.com>
> > To: "Herman Meester" <crazymulgogi at gmail.com>; <b-hebrew at
> > lists.ibiblio.org>
> > Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 5:04 AM
> > Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Zech 6:8
> >
> >
> >  >
> >  > Gday Herman.
> >  >
> >  > In my view, "tenses" are an OK starting point with the BH verbal
> > system
> >  > in that in my view the verbal forms are prototypically used to make
> >  > tense distinctions. However, with a system of only a few forms in a
> >  > world in which more semantic distinctions than tense are necessary, of
> >  > course the verbal forms can be, and are, used to make aspectual
> >  > distinctions: perfective, imperfective, etc.
> >
> > Do you by "tense" mean "grammaticalized location in time" or just
> > "temporal
> > reference"?
>
> Sort of. Even though BH only has a few forms, the necessary semantic
> distinctions needed in communication still falls to the few forms. In
> this way, I take it that both tense and aspect are grammaticalised in
> Hebrew, along the lines of Randall Buth's position (although I am not
> convinced that weqatal is a separate form to qatal). Neither tense-only
> or aspect-only view is sufficient for BH. Tense can be neutralised for
> the expression aspect in the future (as the "aspectual" position will
> demonstrate; but neither is the aspectal view sufficient in that it does
> not answer why qatal is both statistically dominant and unmarked in the
> expression of anterior in the clause types identified in Zevit's
> monograph as well as the data of qatal being used as past non-perfective.
>
> But then I'm not sure of what you're driving at in your distinction
> between "grammaticalized location in time" and "temporal reference". If
> you're question is to determine whether I am making a mistake on the
> view that sematics involves non-cancelability and pragmatics involves
> cancelability, I simply don't buy the rigid distinction (I thus agree
> with Peter Kirk).

According to B. Comrie (1985) "Tense" pp. vii, 9 is defined as
"grammaticalized expression of location in time".  To accept this does not
require that one accepts Broman Olsen´s distinction between "semantic
meaning" and "conversational pragmatic implicature". But it indicates that
when an author uses "temporal reference" s/he does not take any standpoint
as to whether it is the context or the verb form that signals the time of
the verb to the audience. But when "tense" is used according to Comrie´s 
definition (and
I think that few linguists would disagree with him), it means that the time
is an intrinsic part of the verb form itself. So when you used the term 
"tense" and at the same time said that tense "can be neutralised in certain 
constructions" it made me wonder what you meant by "tense".
>
snip

> > What does it mean "to work with a seven vowel system"?
>
> Have a look at, eg:
>
> Khan, Geoffrey. "Tiberian Hebrew Phonology." Pages 85-102 in Phonologies
> of Asia and Africa (Including the Caucasus): Volume 1. Edited by Peter
> T. Daniels. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1997.
>
> Khan, Geoffrey. "Vowel Length and Syllable Structure in the Tiberian
> Tradition of Biblical Hebrew." Journal of Semitic Studies 32 (1987):
> 23-82

It is not a good way to answer a question to refer to other sources than 
yourself.  You said, " I don't
know of any grammar that has yet to work with a seven vowel system, even
though this view has become pretty much the consensus outside the
grammars. As such, we still await a grammar written with this view." The 
purpose of b-hebrew is to exchange views regarding the Hebrew language and 
Hebrew grammer. If a view or a criticism is presented, it is the polite way 
to answer sincere questions regarding what one has written. If the Hebrew 
vowels are referred to, I simply do not understand how grammars such as 
Joüon/Muraoka and van der Merwe et al. have failed to work with the Hebrew 
vowel system.


> Regards,
> David Kummerow.


Best regards

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo