Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Dear David,

Since you continue to post in this thread, I send this post in order to sum 
up the situation.

I object to the label "uncancelable semantics" since this is not a term used 
in linguistics, and it may have connotations that prevents the reader from 
understanding my method. It may even give the reader the impression that I 
do the very opposite what is the case. The same is true with the contents of 
several of your posts. Those reading them probably get the impression that I 
primarily 
search for absolute conclusions that are unalterable, and that I believe I 
have found such. But this is the very opposite of what I am doing, in fact, 
it is exactly what I am criticizing.

For example, I think we find the claim in all modern grammars that   
YIQTOLs with past reference often are progressive ("durative past" is often 
used, but this is a misnomer since durativity is an Aktionsart property), but 
that is not the case with the WAYYIQTOLs. Since the view occurs in all 
grammars 
it comes close to being an absolute conclusion. I criticize this and ask: 
Has anyone seen proofs of the claim that YIQTOLs with past reference are 
progressive?  (This is a challange to all of you who believe in this: where 
are the proofs?) In 
order to illuminate the question I apply the principle of "a scrupulous 
distinction between semantics and pragmatices," and this means a careful 
analysis of the context in order to find  whether the past reference of the 
YIQTOL and the WAYYIQTOL is caused by the context or by the verb form itself. 
In 
other words, are there clues in the context indicating that a YIQTOL with 
past reference should be interpreted differently from a WAYYIQTOL with past 
reference? Therefore, the distinction between semantics and pragmatics does 
the very opposite of what you suggest: the method does not create 
"absolutes" but it destroys "absolutes," such as the claim that past tense 
is asemantic part of the WAYYIQTOL.

Please remember that I do not claim to have created one or more new 
conjugations or other grammatical categories, and claiming that these are 
absolutes. I have done the very opposite, I question that classical Hebrew 
has four conjugations and have attempted to show that there is no semantic 
difference 
between YIQTOLs and WAYYIQTOLs. So, "a scrupulous distinction between 
semantics and pragmatics" means attempts of falsification and not of 
confirmation of creation of new things. The hypothetic deductive method that 
I often follow simply forbids me to believe in absolutes. If a prediction is 
made (if this hypothesis is true, we expect to find this or that) and the 
data seem to confirm it, I claim along the lines of deductive logic that the 
hypothesis is not proven or confirmed; that simply is not possible. But 
Hebrew grammarians have reasoned differently; they have drawn "absolute" 
conclusions on the basis of induction (many data point in the same 
direction), and I say that this is a blatant violation of fundamental 
scientific
principles. I have also mentioned that in connection with falsification I do 
not believe in absolutes. This means that contradictory data must undergo a 
quality test (if someone has proposed the hypothesis that all swans are 
white, and I find two black swans, I have falsified the hypothesis, provided 
that the two swans have not been dyed or have been through the fire or 
something similar). Only a reasonable number of contradictory data with a 
good quality will falsify a hypothesis or a claim. Then we must look at the 
last control, Duhem´s problem; we must be certain which hypothesis or claim 
the data falsify.

Most of my dissertation is devoted to issues related to falsification, the 
very opposite of creating "absolutes".  Only a small part is directly devoted 
to "semantic meaning," because clauses which are so restricted that we, with 
a good measure of certainty, can say that a certain property  is a semantic 
part of the verb form itself and is not caused by the context, are very few. 
These are primarily found in the chapter on the WAYYIQTOLs, where examples 
that are conative, where the beginning and a small part of the action is made 
visible, and where one verb intersects the WAYYIQTOL, are given.  And even 
these examples do not create "absolutes," they are used to show that the 
WAYYIQTOLs have the same properties as the YIQTOLS. Thus, these examples also 
relates to the falsification process. 

The primary tools used throughout the dissertation for the analysis of  the 
verbs are concepts deictic center, event time, and reference time, which 
means that a distinction between deictic time and non-deictic time is made. 
Therefore, if a label should be made, "deictic time/ non-deictic time 
semantics" would be quite fitting, but this is not a term used in 
linguistics, so I would not use it. In any case the label "uncancellable 
semantics" is misleading,.



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Kummerow" <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 10:22 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Question for Rolf on the JW outlook on the Hebrew


> Hi Rolf,
>
> Some quotations from your dissertation:
>
> "[T]his quality test is the scrupulous distinction between
> semantic meaning (uncancellable meaning) and conversational pragmatic
> implicature (cancellable meaning) that is carried out throughout this
> dissertation" (p.47).
>
> "The focus on lexical and morphosyntactic forms corroborates the
> principal aim of this dissertation, namely, to distinguish between
> semantic meaning (uncancellable intrinsic meaning) and
> conversational pragmatic implicature (meaning based on the context)" 
> (p.72).
>
> "In the terms of 'semantic meaning,' that is, uncancellable meaning, the
> picture is not so clear" (p.73).
>
> "The facts outlined in the previous paragraph suggest that the Hebrew
> participle has no particular 'semantic meaning,' that is, it has no
> specifically defined characteristic that is uncancellable
> and that is independent of the context" (p.160).
>
> "Because the infinite forms do not have uncancellable properties, and
> semantic meaning cannot therefore be ascribed to them, they have many
> different functions" (p.169).
>
> "We should remember that semantic meaning per definition is
> uncancellable" (p.197,n.214).
>
> I leave it for others to decide if I have represented you.
>
> I accept that from your point of view that some of my questions may seem
> irrelevant. Nevertheless, they are issues which need to be addressed if
> your individual theory is to be accepted more widely than you yourself.
> They are areas which others discuss in relation to the verbs, some of
> which some scholars take to be diagnostic, but areas not discussed by
> your dissertation.
>
> Again, I appeal to you to demonstrate how your methodology is able
> pinpoint "uncancellable intrinsic meaning" (a term which you have used!)
> in areas of multifunctionality, eg Hithpael etc.
>
> Thanks,
> David Kummerow.
>

Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo
>From farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com  Sat Mar 24 05:40:11 2007
Return-Path: <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from jerusalem.smbc.com.au (mail.smbc.com.au [203.219.193.210])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE3BB4C010
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Sat, 24 Mar 2007 05:40:10 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
        by jerusalem.smbc.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 016DF33C00B
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Sat, 24 Mar 2007 20:40:09 +1100 
(EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smbc.com.au
Received: from jerusalem.smbc.com.au ([127.0.0.1])
        by localhost (jerusalem.smbc.com.au [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new,
        port 10024)
        with ESMTP id NYzkTKHMyXEh for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>;
        Sat, 24 Mar 2007 20:39:54 +1100 (EST)
Received: from [192.168.0.102] (154.228.233.220.exetel.com.au
        [220.233.228.154])
        by jerusalem.smbc.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id C79A933C007
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Sat, 24 Mar 2007 20:39:52 +1100 
(EST)
Message-ID: <4604F1F0.9090103 AT hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 20:40:00 +1100
From: David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (Windows/20060909)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
References: <4604EAEF.3070205 AT smbc.com.au>
In-Reply-To: <4604EAEF.3070205 AT smbc.com.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Question for Rolf on the JW outlook on the Hebrew
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: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 09:40:11 -0000

Hi Rolf,

OK, I'll drop the term in preference for your own "uncancellable
intrinsic meaning". (I still think that this equates to "uncancellable
semantics", but if you don't think so I'll stick to the longer version
"uncancellable intrinsic meaning".)

See a few comments below:


> Dear David,
>
> Since you continue to post in this thread, I send this post in order to sum
> up the situation.
>
> I object to the label "uncancelable semantics" since this is not a term
> used
> in linguistics, and it may have connotations that prevents the reader from
> understanding my method. It may even give the reader the impression that I
> do the very opposite what is the case. The same is true with the
> contents of
> several of your posts. Those reading them probably get the impression
> that I primarily
> search for absolute conclusions that are unalterable, and that I believe I
> have found such. But this is the very opposite of what I am doing, in fact,
> it is exactly what I am criticizing.
>

Some of those posts contain quotations from your dissertation!

It is not to get the wrong impression to take it that your research is
to find the "uncancellable intrinsic meaning" of the verb forms, along
the way disproving tense theories etc. What I am saying is that this
methodological assumption is erroneous. There is often no such thing as
"uncancellable intrinsic meaning", which you maintain and assume in your
research. Eg, you claimed that negation in Hebrew was uncancellable, but
I brought forth some research to show that may not actually be the case.
So too with the Hithpael being mutifunctional. And the Niphal, which is
mediopassive; again mutifunctional.

> For example, I think we find the claim in all modern grammars that
> YIQTOLs with past reference often are progressive ("durative past" is often
> used, but this is a misnomer since durativity is an Aktionsart
> property), but
> that is not the case with the WAYYIQTOLs. Since the view occurs in all
> grammars
> it comes close to being an absolute conclusion. I criticize this and ask:
> Has anyone seen proofs of the claim that YIQTOLs with past reference are
> progressive?  (This is a challange to all of you who believe in this:
> where are the proofs?) In
> order to illuminate the question I apply the principle of "a scrupulous
> distinction between semantics and pragmatices," and this means a careful
> analysis of the context in order to find  whether the past reference of the
> YIQTOL and the WAYYIQTOL is caused by the context or by the verb form
> itself. In
> other words, are there clues in the context indicating that a YIQTOL with
> past reference should be interpreted differently from a WAYYIQTOL with past
> reference? Therefore, the distinction between semantics and pragmatics does
> the very opposite of what you suggest: the method does not create
> "absolutes" but it destroys "absolutes," such as the claim that past tense
> is asemantic part of the WAYYIQTOL.
>

Rolf, I do not claim that past tense is an uncancellable part of
wayyiqtol, only that that is its prototypical meaning. Better: narrative
past tense is its prototypical meaning. By making a distinction between
semantics and pragmatics and applying it in the way you have, you have
only proved that past tense is not 100% part of the functions of
wayyiqtol. That's fine. I never said it was. But neither is imperfective
aspect, as you assert. Eg, it is doing linguistic gymnastics to turn
wayyo'mer into imperfective aspect. As you've done with tense, I would
do with aspect and have to conclude that aspect is not 100% part of the
function of wayyiqtol. And that's fine, I never suspected it would be
because language commonly does not work that way.


> Please remember that I do not claim to have created one or more new
> conjugations or other grammatical categories, and claiming that these are
> absolutes. I have done the very opposite, I question that classical Hebrew
> has four conjugations and have attempted to show that there is no
> semantic difference
> between YIQTOLs and WAYYIQTOLs. So, "a scrupulous distinction between
> semantics and pragmatics" means attempts of falsification and not of
> confirmation of creation of new things. The hypothetic deductive method
> that
> I often follow simply forbids me to believe in absolutes. If a
> prediction is
> made (if this hypothesis is true, we expect to find this or that) and the
> data seem to confirm it, I claim along the lines of deductive logic that
> the
> hypothesis is not proven or confirmed; that simply is not possible. But
> Hebrew grammarians have reasoned differently; they have drawn "absolute"
> conclusions on the basis of induction (many data point in the same
> direction), and I say that this is a blatant violation of fundamental
> scientific
> principles. I have also mentioned that in connection with falsification
> I do not believe in absolutes. This means that contradictory data must
> undergo a quality test (if someone has proposed the hypothesis that all
> swans are white, and I find two black swans, I have falsified the
> hypothesis, provided that the two swans have not been dyed or have been
> through the fire or something similar). Only a reasonable number of
> contradictory data with a good quality will falsify a hypothesis or a
> claim. Then we must look at the last control, Duhem´s problem; we must
> be certain which hypothesis or claim the data falsify.
>
> Most of my dissertation is devoted to issues related to falsification,
> the very opposite of creating "absolutes".  Only a small part is
> directly devoted to "semantic meaning," because clauses which are so
> restricted that we, with a good measure of certainty, can say that a
> certain property  is a semantic part of the verb form itself and is not
> caused by the context, are very few. These are primarily found in the
> chapter on the WAYYIQTOLs, where examples that are conative, where the
> beginning and a small part of the action is made visible, and where one
> verb intersects the WAYYIQTOL, are given.  And even these examples do
> not create "absolutes," they are used to show that the WAYYIQTOLs have
> the same properties as the YIQTOLS. Thus, these examples also relates to
> the falsification process.
>

You see, your quest is for restricted environments where you can
seemingly diagnose "uncancellable intrinsic meaning". Again, this is
because there is a divorce for you between linguistic convention and
semantic meaning. As such, you disregard all the other times a
particular verb form occurs to focus on these restricted examples.
Psycholinguistic research would suggest that this is in error and that
the other examples also impact upon meaning, and in some areas of
grammar perhaps even more so.


> The primary tools used throughout the dissertation for the analysis of
> the verbs are concepts deictic center, event time, and reference time,
> which means that a distinction between deictic time and non-deictic time
> is made. Therefore, if a label should be made, "deictic time/
> non-deictic time semantics" would be quite fitting, but this is not a
> term used in linguistics, so I would not use it. In any case the label
> "uncancellable semantics" is misleading,.
>


Regards,
David Kummerow.