Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Dear Bill,

See my comments below.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bill Rea" <bsr15 AT cantsl.it.canterbury.ac.nz>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 3:05 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] how scholars debate controversial issues


> David wrote:-
>
>
> > I didn't say what you suggest because I already get what Rolf's on
> > about. I have read his work. To me the terms are interchangeable, but
> > they seem not to be for Rolf.
> [snip]
> > You know, I object to "uncancellable intrinsic meaning" AND
> > "uncancellable semantics" -- not as labels, but as methodological
> > assumption(s) in Rolf's work.
> [snip]
> > Did you read the quotations from his dissertation I provided? Do you
> > think the terms are interchangeable?
> > https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew/2007-March/031836.html
>
> Yes, I read those when you first posted them, but I've just reread
> your post again. I agree, to me (and most of the world) it *seems*
> like they are interchangable. I don't know why they aren't
> interchangable for Rolf. But that was my point, for reasons I
> don't understand they aren't interchangable. Unless someone
> figures out why they're not interchangable and can explain
> it to the rest of the world no progress will be made.

RF
Which concepts we use, does usually not matter, as long as we define them.
The two
concepts I use are "semantic meaning" and "conversational pragmatic
implicature"  The first concept implies that the particular property in
question is an intrinsic part of the word, the word form, or the grammatical
construction; the context cannot change this property, and it can be termed
"uncancellable intrinsic meaning". The second concept refers to properties
that are changeable, that depends on the context. In some situations it
matters whether the word "semantic" is used as a qualifier or is itself
qualified. When the word is qualified it may refer to a school of thought or
to a particular paradigm; we may speak of "Philosophical semantics,"
"Davidsonian semantics," "Structural semantics" etc. I objected to the term
"uncancellable semantics" as a *label* of my approach, since it could signal
that I opted for a new school of thought or had introduced a new paradigm.

The real issue is whether the Greek saying PANTA REI  (everything is
streaming; "nothing is certain") can, and should be applied to grammar,
including Hebrew grammar. I think most of the list-members would say No. One
reason for thinking this is the following situation, which time and again
have been seen on the list: When a YIQTOL with past reference is mentioned,
great pains are taken to interpret this as progressive, iterative, habitual
etc. Why? Because of the belief that YIQTOL has an intrinsic property which
is not compatible with a past completed action.

The real issue can be stated this way, 1) Do uncancellable (intrinsic)
meaning exist in lexical semantics, and 2) Do uncancellable (intrinsic)
meaning exist in grammar? I say Yes in both cases, some others say No.
Semantic meaning in grammar can be illustrated by the fact that the English
aspects (represented by the participle and perfect, respectively) are 
mutually exclusive.
The semantic property of the perfective aspect is that the action is
completed at reference time, and the semantic property of the participle is
that the action is uncompleted (still going on) at reference time, as in 1)
and 2) below.


1) Rita was walking in the garden.

2) Rita has walked in the garden.

Tenses and aspects have special uses, but these do not cancel their 
properties.
nontheless, such special cases are sometimes used to argue that semantic 
meaning
does not exist. In Norway we have a special polite expression, as seen in
3). Regardless of whether the view is that "This was good tea" refers to the
last sip, thus factually being past, or to the present situation (which is
likely), Norwegian informants would unanimously say that "var" (was) is past
tense. The intrinsic meaning of the word has notchanged, only its use.

3) Dette var god te.  (This was good tea.)

In my work I have used this distinction, not basically to pinpoint semantic 
meaning in
Hebrew grammar, since my experience is that this is not possible except with
YIQTOL/WAYYIQTOL. But I have used it to try to falsify ideas and to show
that assumptions often have been made without basis, e.g, the existence of
short preterits in Ugaritic and old Psalms. In other words, this distinction 
reveals that much in Hebrew grammars are nothing but educated guesses.

> Karl seems to hold to some similar, though not identical, notion
> to what an amateur like me would understand by uncancellable intrinsic
> meaning. But Karl has said he doesn't know what to make of Rolf's
> theory either.
>
> > Have you noticed, though, that Rolf never concedes anything himself?
>
> Yes, and it is concerning to me. As Peter says this debate has been going
> on for ten years or so. Mostly I've just watched. It appears to me to be
> going nowhere. Some list members have suggested the apparent
> misunderstanding is a religiously motivated behaviour. I tend to give
> people the benefit of the doubt, so I'm currently of the opinion that the
> misunderstanding is real.

As for concessions and apologies, this may be connected with our culture. My
philosophy is: If I have attacked a person unjustly, it is my duty to
apologize (not: "if I have said something wrong, I apologize...," but "I
regret that I said..."). If I have not presented the view of someone in a
correct way, and that person corrects me. I fully accept his or her words.
Only that person knows what he or she stands for. Wrongdoing (false
accusations; harsh words etc) require apologies, but misunderstandings do 
not,
as I see it. However, if I have been corrected regarding the viewpoints of
someone and I continue to use the wrong presentation of these, then an
apology is needed. Some list-members have said that they have demonstrated
serious flaws "in the work of Rolf". Am I supposed to concede that, and if I
don´t,  can it be said in a sarcastic way that I "I never concede anything"?
In order to concede an error, you have to understand that it is an error. In
connection with my dissertation, in one instance the "flaws" pointed out are
based on a diametrically different model. But is this model a good
criterion; how can we know? In onother instance the "flaws" are based on the
views of one who has not read my dissertation. I for one will never expect 
that another person should concede error, if such have not been proven.


> Bill Rea, ICT Services, University of Canterbury \_
> E-Mail bill.rea AT canterbury.ac.nz                </   New
> Phone 64-3-364-2331, Fax  64-3-364-2332        /)  Zealand
> Unix Systems Administrator                    (/'
>
> _______________________________________________

Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo