Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Question for Rolf on the JW outlook on the 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] Question for Rolf on the JW outlook on the Hebrew
  • Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 07:37:56 +1100

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"






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page