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: Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>
  • To: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
  • Cc: 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 19:41:26 +0000

On 24/03/2007 08:55, Rolf Furuli wrote:
... 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. ...

Thank you for clarifying this statement, with which I can agree if we use your definition of "semantic". So we have very few properties which we know to be semantic. But for a language to be useful for communication it must have quite a lot of properties which are semantic; but in the case of biblical Hebrew and using your definitions, we cannot know that they are semantic. It is a simple matter of probability, surely, that a good proportion of the properties which have been alleged to be semantic, but which cannot be proved to be semantic, are in fact semantic although (in the absence of mother tongue speakers) not provably so. The implication of this is that it is very dangerous to slide from "not provably semantic" to "not semantic". So, it seems to me that you need to take more care to avoid saying that some property is not semantic but a matter of linguistic convention, unless you have actually proved that it is not semantic.

I wonder, would you also agree with the opposite of your statement, that clauses of which we can say with a good measure of certainty that a certain property is NOT semantic are very few?

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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page