Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Overview and comments on Furuli, A New Understanding of the Verbal System of Classical Hebrew

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] Overview and comments on Furuli, A New Understanding of the Verbal System of Classical Hebrew
  • Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 11:19:22 +1100

Hi Rolf,

See below:



Dear David,

Your review of the contents of my dissertation is fairly good. I just want
to make a few points regarding two of your comments, one of those that
Harold also asked about.


> 3. An interesting point is made that "[t]o demonstrate that wayyiqtol is
> a semantically independent conjunction, one has to show ... that the
> widespread use of wayyiqtol with past reference is due to the semantic
> meaning of the form, and not just a linguistic convention" (p.48). To my
> mind, this is nonsense: linguistic convention (i.e., the regular choice
> of speakers to use similar linguistic tokens) defines meaning. In other
> words, the entrenchment of meaning is related to linguistic frequency.
> The prising apart here of "semantic meaning" and "linguistic convention"
> means that much ink is spilled in the dissertation upon a fruitless
> quest for contexts in which "uncancellable semantic meaning" may be
> ascertained.

Here you have failed to grasp one of the most important principles of my
study. The reason is that our linguistic views are diametrically opposite: I
try to use simple definitions and the smallest linguistic units in order to
have controls and in order to give
others the ability to test my results. If I understand your approach
correctly, you use several lofty theories and a lot of technical concepts
for which I am not aware of a single control mechanism, e.g., how can we
test
a claim of a partial grammaticalisation of WAYYIQTOL.


I maintain that I have not misunderstood the principles or methodology of your study. I have merely explained your position and the problems I have with it. Rolf, disagreement does not entail failure to grasp!

Further, you attempt to get out from the critique by claiming I use "several lofty theories" and "a lot of technical concepts". The areas which I mention are clear and established linguistic areas, which have support from a wealth of research. However, I am unaware of much which supports the methodological assumption of the dissertation, viz. that of making a scrupulous distinction between cancellable and uncancellable meaning. Here the focus is on the "scrupulous" nature of the distinction, of which I find little support in linguistic literature. Now, I could be wrong and have "linguistic blinkers" on, and I would appreciate if you could point me to a body of research which collaborates your methodology. In any case, my overview and comments basically related to your OWN terminology and concepts! Besides, Rolf, the methodology which you follow in your dissertation is both "lofty" and "technical" and as such any review will necessarily be something of the same. If you are unaware of control mechanisms upon anything of which I write---all of which, by the way, appear in your dissertation (eg grammaticalisation, etc)---then it would seem to me that you have not come to grips with the linguistic research which impinges upon the chosen methodology advanced in the dissertation and how it is quite at odds.



Then to the issue, what you call "nonsense" in my dissertation: Your basic
error, as I see it, is that you *assume* that tense is a part of the Hebrew
verbal system. On the basis of this assumption, a verb form which is
extensively used with past reference must have an intrinsic past tense. When
it is pointed out that many examples of this verb form has a non-past
reference, the explanation is that it is not fully grammaticalised or that
language is fuzzy. But as long as there are no controls, these are just
claims which are hard to distinguish from ad hoc hypotheses.


Rolf, I do not assume it but have become more convinced of it. Five years ago I held to an aspectual position. So it is not an assumption. You, however, assume the methodology of cancellable and uncancellable meaning, and, on the basis of this assumption, approach the BH verbal system and present it as you do, viz. no tense but having a (quasi-)aspectual distinction. I do not accept what you say is my position: "On the basis of this assumption, a verb form which is
extensively used with past reference must have an intrinsic past tense." I do not accept this position because I do not accept the "must" or "intrinsic" part of it, ie I do not accept your own assumption of uncancellability. Besides, I have repeatedly pointed out how, say, non-past uses of qatal may be understood, but you repeatedly ignore my comments. You do, however, mention below that you did not neglect them in your dissertation. However, they do not appear in the dissertation, so what am I to conclude? You say that they "were viewed of little importance", but you do not advance in the dissertation why this is so, when evidence and research points out that this may not be so.



I object strongly to the claim that linguistic convention and the
intrinsic meaning of a verb form are interchangeable. For example, in 50
verses in Ezekiel chapters 1and 10 we find a description of a heavenly
throne. Of the verbs with past reference I count 28 YIQTOLs, 2 QATALs, 7
participles, two infinitive absolutes, and 15 WAYYIQTOLs. In addition, there
are 3 QATALs with pre-past meaning. Why do we have all these YIQTOLs with
past reference in this scenario? Interestingly, when I translated the
Ethiopic
Enoch into Norwegian some years ago, I found the same excess of imperfective
forms, with and without prefixed WAW in the heavenly visions in that book.
Logically, there is some linguistic convention behind this, but this
convention does not tell us anything about the intrinsic meaning of the
YIQTOLs or the Ethiopic prefix-forms. Similarly in Phoenician, in several
inscriptions the infinitive absolute is used as the narrative form. This
tells us about the linguistic convention in connection with these
inscriptions, but nothing about the intrinsic meaning of the infinitive
absolute. In the Ugaritic saga of Kirta (Keret) prefixed forms are used to
tell what will happen, and later exactly the same clauses with exactly the
same prefix forms are used to tell what happened. This is a linguistic
convention which tells us nothing about the meaning of the prefix form.

Then to the WAYYIQTOL issue: The WAY+YIQTOL is extensively used as a
narrative verb. This means that a set of consequtive actions are portrayed,
each action following the other. It is generally accepted that one action is
completed before the next has started. No one would deny that this use of
WAYYIQTOL is a lingusitic convention, but its past reference does not tell
us whether the WAYYIQTOL form is an independent preterit conjugation, an
independent perfective conjugation, or is an imperfective YIQTOL with
prefixed WAW. We cannot assume an answer, but we should demonstrate what is
the case. I can formulate my requirement in other words: I think that it was
natural for the old Hebrews to use imperfective prefix forms as their
narrative verbs, and they applied a WAW as a tool to move the narrative
forwards. This was a linguistic convention. In order to show that WAYYIQTOL
is a past tense, you cannot just assume that my possibility is wrong, you
must demonstrate it.

>
> 4. Areas of research which quite potentially have much bearing on
> aspects of discussion are neglected: a) the distribution of qatal and
> yiqtol with temporal adverbs "yesterday" and "tomorrow"; b) in
> conjunction with the present-tense uses of (we)qatal no investigation is
> made of cosubordination, politeness, gnomics, and performatives; c) the
> distribution of paragogic nun; d) the distribution of third-person
> pronominal suffixes augmented with nun; e) the possibility of
> exaggerated futures with qatal (presumably because this is in conflict
> with the advanced methodology); and f) default use of qatal in
> non-paratactic constructions being anterior. Now in one sense it does
> not matter what we label a verb so long as we accurately describe its
> range of use. However, it is useful for labelling to reflect
> prototypical function as some sort of mnemonic. The debate, then, is
> over what is seen to be the prototypical use of the different BH verb
> conjugations. The trouble as I see it with the dissertation is that
> because of its methodology of finding uncancellable meaning, it is
> unable to convincingly demonstrate prototypical meaning. The reason is
> that the BH verbs, as indeed verbs, words, etc in other languages, are
> multifunctional, i.e. they have more than one function. This is
> particularly so with qatal, which may be seen as an extreme case of
> multifunctionality. Multifunctionality basically implies incomplete
> grammaticalisation and fuzziness. However, what if that multifunctional
> fuzziness is essentially, as is the case with qatal, the multifunction
> of a verbal conjugation that can be (construnctionally?) used for
> anterior, performatives, gnomics, hypothetical/conditional, exaggerated
> futures, etc? That is, there is a fuzziness to the range of uses which a
> methodology that starts with the premise that meaning solely falls into
> either (the non-fuzzy categories) "cancellable meaning" and
> "uncancellable meaning" is unable to describe or relate to. And a
> related fault, then, is that linguistic convention is seen to have no
> bearing on semantics. (I guess I should point out that the debate
> concerning the prototypical function of the BH verbal conjugations could
> similarly be had over other fuzzy areas of language: function words
> [esp. when not completely grammaticalised], the meaning of lexical
> items, etc etc etc [the list is basically endless due to the fact that
> speakers are unable to have an exhaustive inventory of semantic and
> pragmatic meanings upon which to draw: generalisation, economy,
> polysemy, and conceptual grouping are central aspects of language]. As
> such, I am unconvinced that the methodology rigorously followed in the
> dissertation is able to produce fruitful results in existent linguistic
> multifunctionality and if the area of investigation exhibits incomplete
> grammaticalisation.

The areas you mention were not neglected, but they were viewed of little
importance,
and in the study the more important issues were stressed.


Again, as in your dissertation, you neglect interaction, so I am about to run out of puff...



>
> Hope this helps!
>
> Sincerely,
> David Kummerow.
> _______________________________________________


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo


Regards,
David Kummerow.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page