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: David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Uncancelable meaning
  • Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 20:06:47 +0100

On 30/03/2007 20:41, David Kummerow wrote:
...

Suppose an English teacher was up the front of class and she was getting the students to think about the word "have". Supposed she asked "what do you have?" The default construal of this would be that the question is one of possession, either as in a) below as a question of owned possessions or physical attributes as in b):

a) I have a cat (= I own/possess a cat)

b) I have a big nose (= I possess a big nose)

Both are stative situations.

The answer in a) can refer to possessions currently with them at their desk or not (as in a) above where the cat is most likely at home, but could be at school on a show-and-tell day):

c) I have a blue pen

Since our present discussion revolves around eating, here's another possible answer to the question:

d) I have a plate of dinner

This can only be construed that a plate with the student's dinner is on their desk or at least in their immediate vicinity at the moment of speaking. Again, the construal is stative.

However, suppose the teacher were to ask "What do you have at Maxim's?" This could be answered in a few ways, for example:

e) I have a large plate of chips

Notice how the construal by the student is as a question asking about what the student usually orders at Maxim's, ie it is a question as to what they usually eat. ...

Indeed. And if the student said "I go to Maxim's for dinner every day" and the teacher's "What do you have?" was said in that context, then "I have a large plate of chips" would be a quite normal response, whereas any of (a) to (c) would be odd in that context. So it is clear that in the context of "I go to Maxim's for dinner every day" the default sense of "have", which is stative, has been cancelled, and an alternative dynamic sense is understood. So much for the stative property of "have" being uncancellable by context.

In passing I note that once again Rolf has withdrawn from the discussion. Could it be that he realises that he has misunderstood English "have" and the uncancellability of the stative property, but doesn't want to be forced to admit an error?

--
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