Biblical Hebrew Forum

[David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>]

Exactly, Karl. Ancient Greek is even less sparing with its use of the 
definite article with names.

There are such few examples of non-definite use that I think it is 
improper to put the category on par with the usual uses as is done in 
the grammars.

In his other email Harold has to again and again say that he knows 
exactly what is happening in the context of the passage such that to him 
it seems absurd that the use of the article could in no way be 
considered consistent with its usual uses. To me it's just a bit too 
presumptuous. In most examples the possibility cannot be ruled out 
ABSOLUTELY. That's the point. If this is at all granted, then it follows 
that the category of "non-definite use of the definite article" should 
not be given grammatical status on the same level with the regular uses.

I grant that there is some conceptual overlap with the disputed examples 
with generic use. However, when actual so-called non-definite examples 
are referred to they still remain different from generic use as these 
examples are in no way generic. It remains to be demonstrated that 
definite articles can be used to refer specific unknown entities.

Indefinite pronouns are quite interesting. Russian, for example, has an 
indefinite pronoun, koe, which is used for the expression of specific 
known referents (from Haspelmath 1997: 274-275):

Nam nado pogovorit' s toboj koe o čem.
"You and I have to talk about something."

Another pronoun, -to, inter alia, refers to specific yet unknown referents:

Ona xočet vyjti zamuž za kogo-to iz Ameriki.
"She wants to marry someone [specific] in America."

English some- covers both range of uses.

Now, regrading definite articles, once a language has grammaticalised a 
definite article, further semantic bleaching and weakening can occur, 
which reduces definiteness to specificity, as in Abkhaz and Dagbani 
(Lehmann 1995: 39). Referential meaning can then be lost altogether so 
that the morpheme merely functions as a nominaliser. Now, regrading BH, 
it remains to be demonstrated that such semantic bleaching of the 
definite article has indeed occurred, and that its use is encroaching 
upon indefinite referral like that given above.

Haspelmath, Martin. 1997. Indefinite Pronouns. Oxford Studies in 
Typology and Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lehmann, Christian. 1995. Thoughts on Grammaticalization. Lincom Studies 
in Theoretical Linguistics 1. München: Lincom.


Regards,
David Kummerow.






> > Subject:
> > Re: [b-hebrew] David's article
> > From:
> > "K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
> > Date:
> > Tue, 19 Jun 2007 08:58:50 -0700
> > To:
> > b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> >
> > To:
> > b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> >
> >
> > Harold:
> >
> > Not only does English use the definite article more sparingly than
> > does Biblical Hebrew, it uses it more sparingly than even other
> > Indo-European languages: I am thinking specifically of German.
> > Therefore it is improper to project English usage back onto Biblical
> > Hebrew.
> >
> > This is a case where I think the grammarians are making a mountain out
> > of a molehill.
> >
> > Karl W. Randolph.
> >
> > On 6/19/07, Harold Holmyard <hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > Dear David,
> > > ... Of course this is a
> > > much smaller category of usage than the regular definite article, for
> > > there are only a limited number of instances where the usage would be
> > > suitable. But a limited number of occurrences of a usage does not
> > > invalidate a usage.
> > >
> > > Yours,
> > > Harold Holmyard