Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Rolf Furuli" <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear David,

Some list-members seem to think that my method is extreme, only black and 
white, either this or that, but that is amisunderstanding; the concept 
"uncancellable semantics" is not fitting as a label for my method. I am not 
aware of any study of Semitic languages where a systematic quest regarding 
which parts of particular clauses convey which meanings has been the guiding 
principle, but this is common in linguistic studies. In other words, the 
difference between past reference (which can be pragmatic or semantic) and 
past tense (which is semantic; a gramamticalisation of location in time) is 
elementary for first grade students of linguistics, at least in Scandinavia.

For example, I cannot think that any linguist would have any objection to the 
redundancy/contradiction test made by Broman Olsen regarding plod and slowly; 
 slowly is clearly an uncancelable part of plod. We cannot perform such tests 
with any word or any construction, but in some instances we can. The 
linguistic literature are full of tests by which a particular meaning is 
excluded or confirmed, but few list-members seem to be regular readers of the 
linguistic literature.

As mentioned, cancelable tests for Hebrew are few. But would any list-member 
object to the following test: Is negation an uncancelable part of L) and )L?  
( The test of L) is rather clearcut; to perform the test with  )L requires 
that we have a method to distinguish between this particle and the 
preposition )L.) But what about the following test: Is modality an 
uncancelable part of )L?  Would such tests be extreme and unvarranted? My 
tests of the Hebrew conjugations are in principle exactly the same kind of 
tests; for example: is past tense an uncancelable part of WAYYIQTOL.

I do not think that you will find anything under the heading "uncancelable 
semantics," but if  you want to know what other scholars have written in 
areas which  parallels the methods of M Broman Olsen, which are similar to 
mine, I suggest that you start with her book "A Semantic and Pragmatic Model 
of Lexical and Grammatical Aspect"

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Kummerow" <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 2:00 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Question for Rolf on the JW outlook on the Hebrew


> Hi Rolf,
> 
> I'd also like to add that I'm still waiting for you to provide me with 
> any fairly recent linguistic literature advocating a methodology of 
> uncancellable semantics. I would indeed like to do some reading in this 
> area if possible.
> 
> Thanks,
> David Kummerow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> Sorry, this
>> 
>>> Yes, and I have put the question back to you in reverse and I did not
>>> receive a satisfactory answer: "How can verb forms each of which
>>> 'represent' two aspects have a primarily temporal value?"
>>>
>> 
>> 
>> should actually read:
>> 
>> 
>> Yes, and I have put the question back to you in reverse and I did not 
>> receive a satisfactory answer: "How can verb forms each of which 
>> 'represent' two aspects have a primarily aspectual value?"

RF
I do not know any Hebrew verb form which represents two aspects. The question 
seems to be based on the assumption that aspect is the same in all aspectual 
languages; therefore one projects an Indo-European understanding of aspect on 
Hebrew. On this basis it may appear that one verb form represents two aspects.

>> 
>> 
>> David Kummerow.
>> 
> 

Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo
>From peter AT qaya.org  Fri Mar 23 13:45:44 2007
Return-Path: <peter AT qaya.org>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from mail.bcisgnet.co.uk (mail.bcisgnet.co.uk [212.100.232.232])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A4934C010
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Fri, 23 Mar 2007 13:45:44 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from mail.bcisgnet.co.uk (mail.bcisgnet.co.uk [212.100.232.232])
        by mail.bcisgnet.co.uk with ESMTP id l2NHjUMa030756
        (SMTP Authenticated by TLS version=TLSv1/SSLv3
        cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NOT) ;
        Fri, 23 Mar 2007 17:45:31 GMT
Message-ID: <4604123B.6010404 AT qaya.org>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 17:45:31 +0000
From: Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: JoeWallack AT aol.com
References: <c61.fdb05a2.33353e75 AT aol.com>
In-Reply-To: <c61.fdb05a2.33353e75 AT aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: Scanned by ClamAV (http://www.clamav.net/
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.56 on 212.100.232.232
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Definite Article 7:14
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Biblical Hebrew Forum <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 17:45:44 -0000

On 23/03/2007 14:30, JoeWallack AT aol.com wrote:
> ...
>
> Joseph:
> The problem with using 19th century authorities is that they normally no
> longer have the ability to communicate. Another problem is 19th century 
> editors
> over-editing. ...
>

Joseph, I am sure that for some people the history of Gesenius' thought
and the textual history of the various editions and translations of his
work is a fascinating study. For me it is not. The main question is, is
there a usage here for which the Hebrew article and the English
indefinite article can both be used? It seems to me that there is.
Whether Gesenius personally agreed, or only his editors and translators,
is irrelevant to me.

--
Peter Kirk
E-mail:  peter AT qaya.org
Blog:    http://www.qaya.org/blog/
Website: http://www.qaya.org/