Biblical Hebrew Forum

[David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>]

And the seeming refusal to accept any methodological consequences of 
such living-language data -- esp. when English data form a large part of 
the backbone of the methodological discussion of aspect in the 
dissertation! -- is worrying, particularly so when the primary aim of 
the methodology is to uncover the "uncancellable meaning" of verbal 
conjugations in a dead language.

Regards,
David Kummerow.


> 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?