Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>]

Peter,

Could you supply us, please, with some examples where "... some  
WEYIQTOLs may have been mis-pointed as WAYYIQTOL."

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Mar 8, 2007, at 12:48 PM, Peter Kirk wrote:

> On 08/03/2007 08:25, Rolf Furuli wrote:
> > ...
> > As mentioned, grammatical theories are needed, but in order to let  
> > the theories  disturb or influence the material under study (the  
> > text of the Tanakh ) as little as possible, I try to differentiate  
> > between semantic and pragmatic factors in the text. ...
>
> But by making any kind of differentiation between these factors you  
> are
> already importing a theory, according to which there is a distinction
> between semantic and pragmatic factors, and allowing it to  
> significantly
> disturb the material under study.
>
> > ... For example, when I observe (observation is basically theory- 
> > independent) that WAYYIQTOLs very often occur in narrative texts  
> > and describe past, completed situations, I do not conclude:  
> > "WAYYIQTOL represents past tense," or "WAYYIQTOL represents the  
> > perfective aspect". But I ask, "The past, completed reference, is  
> > it an intrinsic part of the WAYYIQTOL form itself, or is it caused  
> > by contextual factors?" This cannot be answered by the prototype  
> > theory or the grammaticalisation theory, but only by a careful  
> > study of all the WAYYIQTOLs. ...
>
> Here you are importing a theory simply by assuming that there is a  
> valid
> distinction to be made between what is intrinsic and what is caused by
> contextual factors.
>
> > ... Interestingly, as Comrie observes, any verb form,regardlessof  
> > it ownmeaning, used as the narrative verb must signal past  
> > completed actions - this is the very nature of narratives. ...
>
> Is Comrie really saying what you are suggesting? Does he hold that any
> verb form, even for example one which usually has a clear semantic
> meaning as an imperfective future, can in fact be used in  
> narrative, and
> when it is so used it signals past completed actions? If so, he is
> contradicting your position that semantic meaning is uncancellable,
> because in such a case it is cancelled by the narrative context. Or is
> Comrie's meaning in fact the more probable one, that verb forms which
> are used as narrative verbs must be ones which regardless of context
> signal past completed actions, or at least that such a use is a  
> possible
> and normal one for that verb form? If the latter, this would imply at
> least that one part of the meaning of WAYYIQTOL is past completed  
> action.
>
> > ... Therefore, contrary to the common opinion, the least likely  
> > place to find the real meaning of the WAYYIQTOL in Hebrew and the  
> > infinitive absolute in Phoenician is in narrative texts. In order  
> > to find out whether WAYYIQTOL represents past tense or the  
> > perfective or imperfective aspect we have to look for situations  
> > which are so restricted that the real nature of WAYYIQTOL is seen.  
> > There are particularly three situations where the imperfective  
> > nature of the form is visible, 1) conative situations (attempts  
> > that were not carriedout), 2) ingressive events (the event starts  
> > and continues without reaching the end, and 3) intersection of one  
> > event by another (similar to "when Rita was reading (WAYYIQTOL)  
> > the paper, John entered the room."
>
> I accept that if you could find unambiguous cases of WAYYIQTOL used in
> this way, that would suggest that it is not an entirely perfective  
> verb
> form - although a small number of cases might be explained as special
> idiomatic constructions, non-standard language or dialect, poetic
> "licence", or textual corruption - the last particularly involving
> confusion with the distinct but similar sounding WEYIQTOL form, in  
> other
> words some WEYIQTOLs may have been mis-pointed as WAYYIQTOL.
>
> > ...
> >
> > One last point: Both you and Peter have said that my approach is  
> > not worable in natural language. That is wrong! I accept  
> > exceptions  exactly as you do. But I demand that pointing to  
> > exceptions in Hebrew should not be ad hoc (when a verb contradicts  
> > one´s theory, it is labelled as an exception), but it should be  
> > explained why a verb deserve the label "exception".
> Well, scientists do not insist that an aberrant result which  
> doesn't fit
> the theory has to be explained or else the theory is invalid. Instead,
> they accept that there will be experimental errors, and look for  
> general
> patterns without worrying about trying to explain a small number of
> exceptions. Similarly in Hebrew, and in any real language text, there
> are a number of factors which may cause apparent exceptions, results
> which are far from fitting the theory; I listed some of these  
> factors above.
>
> Consider the physicist's "proof" that all odd numbers are prime: 1
> prime, 3 prime, 5 prime, 7 prime, 9 experimental error, 11 prime, 13
> prime... (as opposed to the bad mathematician's "proof": 1 prime, 3
> prime, other odd numbers are prime by induction; and the engineer's
> "proof": 1 prime, 3 prime, 5 prime, 7 prime, 9 prime, 11 prime, 13
> prime... ;-) ). The physicist's method is bad mathematics, but good
> physics, and no explanation is needed for 9 being experimental error
> except that an error of one out of seven is within acceptable limits.
> Now sometimes it seems as if you treat language as like mathematics  
> and
> pure logic, but instead it is more like physics and measurement of the
> real world, which includes exceptions and experimental errors.
>
>
> --
> Peter Kirk
> E-mail:  peter AT qaya.org
> Blog:    http://www.qaya.org/blog/
> Website: http://www.qaya.org/
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew