Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Uncancelable meaning

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] Uncancelable meaning
  • Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:30:20 +0100

On 29/03/2007 14:26, Rolf Furuli wrote:
Dear Bill,

An important problem with much of this thread and the corresponding threads is that
some list-members without a linguistic background are not able to see the
real issues; they bring "counter-examples" that miss the mark, since thay
are not trained in ascertaining which parts of the clauses convey which
meaning.

I'm glad, Rolf, that your derogatory asides are now not being directed at me, because you obviously can't intend to include me among "list-members without a linguistic background".

...

"They overlook the fact that the verbal situation "have dinner" is a state
situation because of the fact that we cannot discern any different phases in
this situation. Either you are in a state of having dinner or you are not.
It may be the case that "having dinner" involves a number of different
courses, of changes of plates, etc., but this does not alter the fact that
an analysis of "have dinner" should in fact yield the answer that here we
have a stative verb, "have," in a state situation, "have dinner". ...

As Stoney has pointed out, this analysis only makes sense as special pleading in favour of a prejudged understanding of "have" as static. Presumably you would claim that "stand" is also a static verb, in fact probably your prototypical example of one, but you have already stated that "run" is not. So how would you interpret the fact that "stand for election" and "run for election" are almost synonymous (with the former more British, the latter more American)? In this situation how can you claim that "stand" retains its static character and "run" its dynamic one?

...
By this is not to say that, in the framework of the present study, Krio verb
R)N, which translates as "run" in English and "springa" in Swedish, would
necessarily cover exactly the same semantic ground as its closest English
and Swedish equivalents. The only claim it makes is that the basic,
underlying CONCEPT "run", in whatever lexicalized guise it appears, will
carry the same dynamicity value, cross-linguistically."

This quote is much closer to the mark in identifying that static and dynamic are properties of underlying concepts, and not of the words used to express them. There is no reason why the same lexical word, such as "have", "stand" or "run", cannot be used to express both static and dynamic concepts, and indeed it is clear that this does happen, at least in English and very probably in other languages.

--
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