Biblical Hebrew Forum

[David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>]

Hi Karl,

See below:

> Bill:
> In looking at the history of languages and literary styles, the only thing
> we can say for certainty about changes over history is that there is no
> universally true, linear pattern which all languages follow. Languages gain,
> and lose phonemes over time, and there is no way to predict exactly how and
> why. Different people's literary styles can be vastly different, even within
> the same language within the same time period. Again no way to predict it.
> The only way to trace it is afterwards, through looking at recorded
> evidence: either by looking at a large body of literature of known venue, or
> by looking at the same document in several versions, and tracing its change
> over time.

Karl, this is simply incorrect. Language change is neither completely 
arbitrary nor limitless. It is not true to say that no predications can 
be made. Why the position of formalist linguistic theory as to the 
existence of Universal Grammar? Or the functionalist argument as to the 
existence of typological universals or prototypes?

In contrast to your seeming "belief" here, grammaticalization studies 
have demonstrated that predications can in fact be made. Two areas in BH 
that I'm currently familiar with are the loss of stative verbs and the 
rise of a nonverbal copula. Both language changes are entirely 
predictable on typological traits of the language: the first by the 
shift from aspect to tense (see eg Cook's dissertation which raises 
this, the first work relating to BH to the best of my knowledge to do 
so) and the second by the interaction between marked attributive noun 
phrases, null-encoded predicate nominals, and what Hebraists have 
labelled the tripartite verbless clause.

[snip]

> Karl W. Randolph.

Regards,
David Kummerow.