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: "Rolf Furuli" <furuli AT online.no>
  • 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 19:38:36 -0000

Dear David,

The first three points below deal with morphological questions and could in principle be relevant for my quest of finding the semantic meaning of the verb forms; the last two are pragmatic in nature and are not relevant. Because I have analysed all the verbs, I have also analysed all the forms with an extra NUN. In my view, the arguments regarding long and short forms that are semantically distinctive have no real basis. They build on several assumptions which seem to be wrong, and without the assumptions the NUNs tell us nothing regarding Semantic meaning ( Cf. J. Hoftijzer (1985) "Function and Use of Imperfect Forms with Nun Paragogicum in Classical Hebrew." I have also carefully analysed the temporal adverbs/adverbials including "yesterday" and "tomorrow". The examples of these two are too few to have importance and therefore have not received a special treatment in the dissertation, but a few temporal adverbs have been discussed in more detail.

Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo

----- Original Message ----- From: "David Kummerow" <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 1:09 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Overview and comments on Furuli, A New Understanding of the Verbal System of Classical Hebrew


Hi Rolf,




[snip]

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

How is paragogic nun of little importance for you study? The basic
consensus has been that they are diagnostic of the long prefix verb.

How are the third-person suffix pronouns augmented with nun not
important? Again, the basic consensus has been that they are diagnostic
of the long prefix verb.

How are the distributions of qatal and yiqtol with "yesterday" and
"tomorrow" of little importance when they seem to be distributionally
the same as English?

Why aren't performatives seen to be important when the interaction of
performative semantics would seem to have bearing upon the meaning of
the verbal construction (see Anstey's dissertation, for example).

Why isn't the default anterior use of qatal investigated when this would
seem to me be strongly relevant?

Etc etc?


Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo


Regards,
David Kummerow.







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page