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: David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] We and us
  • Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 16:46:32 +1100

I should also mention that on matters of grammaticalisation in BH, the following is useful reading:

Andersen, T. David. 2000. “The Evolution of the Hebrew Verbal System.” Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 13: 1-66.

Anstey, Matthew. 2006. “The Grammatical–Lexical Cline in Tiberian Hebrew.” Journal of Semitic Studies 51: 59-84.

Anstey, Matthew P. 2006. “Towards a Functional Discourse Grammar Analysis of Tiberian Hebrew.” Published PhD diss., Vrije Universiteit.

Cook, John A. 2001. “The Hebrew Verb: A Grammaticalization Approach.” Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 14: 117-143.

Cook, John A. 2002. “The Biblical Hebrew Verbal System: A Grammaticalization Approach.” PhD diss., University of Wisconsin–Madison.

Miller, Cynthia L. 2003 [1996]. The Representation of Speech in Biblical Hebrew Narrative: A Linguistic Analysis. Harvard Semitic Monographs 55. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.

Tropper, Josef. 2001. “Die Herausbildung des bestimmten Artikels im Semitischen.” Journal of Semitic Studies 46: 1-31.

Regards,
David Kummerow.


Hi Bryan,

I'm not sure if either of the two "questions" you suggest get at the matter fully: "The question is not whether the notions surface as noun clauses or independent pronouns. The question is whether the transformation from a notion in one person to a surface structure in another person is driven by politeness."

That is, I take it that there is a further "question", that being: how is politeness being expressed in the example raised---pronoun avoidance, third-person address (with lexical items) or via polite pronouns? Put this way, I think it is hard to conclude that 'adoni hammelek and `abdo are polite pronouns; rather, they are the linguistic strategy in BH whereby politeness can be expressed by lexical noun phrases in the ABSENCE of grammaticalised polite pronouns.

Perhaps a definition of "grammaticalisation" (American "grammaticalization") may help to clarify matters: "Grammaticalization is a process leading from lexemes to grammatical formatives. ... A sign is grammaticalized to the extent that it is devoid of concrete lexical meaning and takes part in obligatory rules" (Lehmann 1995: viii), the change being irreversible (Haspelmath 1999).

Looking again at the example: to what extent are the phrases 'adoni hammelek and `abdo grammaticalised? 'adoni hammelek will only be used in reference to a king, that is, the politeness expressed by the phrase has not extended past such a context. For it to be a polite pronoun, it would need to have lost much of the reference to "king" such that the phrase could be used more widely of any addressee when the expression of politeness is desired. Sure the phrases expresses politeness in the example; but the phrase isn't grammaticalised. Is this the situation too with `abdo? I'm not sure that the word has lost its lexical meaning of "servant" and instead is a polite pronoun. Note that the suffix is not obligatorily 3ms, but will change depending of the context (3mp, 2ms, 2pl, etc). This points to the non-grammaticalised nature of the expression, with `ebed still being a lexical word denoting "servant/slave". It is via the use of this lexical word denoting "servant/slave" that politeness is being expressed, not by the use of a grammaticalised polite pronoun. The issue is where `abdo is situated on the lexical-grammatical cline, with lexical words being used for the expression of politeness on one end of the spectrum, and grammatical items reserved solely for this purpose on the other.

Here's the references I mentioned above as well as one relevant to the issue of the expression of politeness in BH:

Estelle, Bryan D. 2001. “Know Before Whom You Stand: The Language of Deference in Some Ancient Aramaic and Hebrew Documents.” PhD diss., Catholic University of America.

Haspelmath, Martin. 1999. “Why is Grammaticalization Irreversible?” Linguistics 37: 1043-1068.

Lehmann, Christian. 1995. Thoughts on Grammaticalization. Lincom Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 1. München: Lincom.

Hope this helps to clarify things.

Regards,
David Kummerow.

Hi David,
Begging your patience.

Take 1 Sam 26:19 for an example:

yishma` na' 'adoni hammelek 'et dibrey `abdo

We have a 3rd person subject prefix on the verb. Surely this is a transformation from the second person notion "you" (2nd person) as in "you listen."

We have a third person pronominal suffix on `abdo. Surely this is a transformation from the first person possessive notion, "The words are mine."

The question is not whether the notions surface as noun clauses or independent pronouns. The question is whether the transformation from a notion in one person to a surface structure in another person is driven by politeness.

Am I thinking correctly?

If yes, why wouldn't the surface structure qualify as grammaticalization since it requires third person reference?

Shalom,
Bryan








Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page