Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] We and us

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "B. M. Rocine" <brocine AT twcny.rr.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] We and us
  • Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 20:13:20 -0500

HI David,

I thankfully accept your caution.

In fairness to Revell, I poorly stated his definition of immediacy/distance as a parameter of usage. It is not only a deference or politeness distinction per se. Immediacy reflects a category of usage in which social status, emotional intensity, and personal concern come into play (see _The Designation of the Individual_ 3.4, 26.1, 28.5.1-2).

In addition his analysis of the 'ani/'anoki contrast does not sit alone. According to Revell, it is part of a widely utilized and self-consistent parameter of usage, immediacy/distance.

Of course, we should probably view with suspicion any "self-consistent" linguistic system in the Hebrew Bible, but again, in fairness to Revell, his corpus of study is limited to Sam-Kings, if I remember correctly.

I am not out to defend Revell. Only to be fair. On the other hand, I do like coming to the Hebrew Bible with a "friendliness" like his, in which one strives to find consistency in the corpus we have rather than trying to reconstruct the origin of BH.

shalom,
Bryan

David Kummerow wrote:
Note, though, that Revell's position can be critiqued typologically. For every other language that expresses a politeness distinction with their independent personal pronouns, the distinction occurs first in the second person, then in the third, and only then in the first (see esp the Helmbrecht references below). In other words, some functional reason means that if a language expresses a politeness distinction in the first person, it must also express this distinction in the third and second person pronouns, which Hebrew does not. Therefore, the typological evidence calls Revell's account into question. In this light, the theory that Hebrew exhibits a politeness distinction in the first person needs explanation as to why it diverts for all other languages, which Revell does not unfortunately provide. Personally, I am thus extremely hesitant to affirm Revell's position.

Reading on this question would include:

Agha, Asif. 1994. “Honorification.” Annual Review of Anthropology 23: 277-302.

Helmbrecht, Johannes. 2004. “Ikonizität in Personalpronomina.” Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 23: 211-244.

Helmbrecht, Johannes. 2004. “Personal Pronouns: Form, Function, and Grammaticalization.” Habilitationschrift, University of Erfurt.

Helmbrecht, Johannes. 2005. “Typologie und Diffusion von Höflichkeitspronomina in Europa.” Arbeitspapiere des Seminars für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Erfurt 18: 1-34. [http://www.db-thueringen.de/servlets/DerivateServlet/Derivate-6136/ASSidUE18.pdf]

Helmbrecht, Johannes. 2005. “Politeness Distinctions in Pronouns.” Pages 186-189 in The World Atlas of Language Structures. Edited by Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil, and Bernard Comrie. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Regards,
David Kummerow.
Mah nishmah, Yigal,
I was just about to send off a note to you pointing to Revell's work when I saw David's post.

Revell explains the choice between ani and anoki pragmatically. ani for "immediate" situations where social distance and formality are either uncalled for or abandoned, and anoki to express "distance," that is, when a speaker takes care to express formality, restraint, timelessness.

I think the explanation works, but then again, I am sort of partial toward "pragmatics." I think Vince DeCaen has researched an alternative, semantically driven explanation in Samuel-Kings, but I don't know if he ever published.

Shalom,
Bryan



--
B. M. Rocine
Living Word Church
6101 Court St. Rd.
Syracuse, NY 13026
(W): 315.437.6744




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page