Biblical Hebrew Forum

[David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>]

Hi Rolf,

Come on Rolf, both you and I know that the quest of finding 
uncancellable semantics drives your study; you even say that this must 
be "scrupulous"! I'll continue to use the term until you can show that 
it is otherwise -- even if you try to escape the labelling by saying 
"some list-members seem to think that my method is extreme, only back 
and white" and "is elementary for first grade students of linguistics, 
at least in Scandinavia." These people may not have read your 
dissertation, but I have, and I still think it is an accurate, brief 
representational label. If you now think I'm being too nit-picky, it's 
because I've followed the argument of your dissertation where the 
methodology is indeed as you say there, "scrupulous".

I'm still waiting for any reading on this that you can provide. My 
impression from reading that I have done is that linguists these days 
have moved on from the "scrupulous" methodology to something more along 
the lines of what Peter and I are advocating. But I could be wrong and 
I'd appreciate some reading. I guess, though, if you can't provide me 
with anything I'll case up some myself out of Olsen if she's got anything.

I note that you fail to interact with MY example, raising instead 
examples where multifunctionality ISN'T really the case. Therefore, you 
are able to restate again your basic premise. But this is to 
misunderstand what Peter and I are saying: we aren't saying that every 
grammatical item or lexeme exhibits cancellation of semantics, just that 
the possibility is allowable. However, while I can't object to the 
"plod" example, I can object to Hebrew "no\not": the negative semantics 
can, in fact, be cancelled -- what Driver (1973) called "affirmation by 
explanatory negation". The "negative" is turned into a forceful 
positive, much like what I have suggested is the case with qatal being 
used for exaggerated future.

What you need to address for me, still, are examples of 
multifunctionality like the Hithpael - what is it's uncancellable 
meaning? Ditto for Niphal etc.

Driver, G. R. 1973. “Affirmation by Exclamatory Negation.” Journal of 
the Ancient Near Eastern Society 5: 107-114.

Regards,
David Kummerow.


> 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"