Biblical Hebrew Forum

[David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>]

Hi Uri,

Linguistically-speaking, your claim here is simply false and there is no 
evidence to substantiate your position.

Just because a lexeme, verbal form, or whatever is multifunctional does 
not mean that it serves no function at all. Remember, the suffix verb in 
BH admits to both temporal and aspectual functions, as does the prefix 
verb -- this does not mean that they serve no function. The niphal is 
multifunctional, encompassing a range of functions from passive to 
middle. The Hithpael is multifunctional, encompassing a range of 
functions from reflexive to middle to anti-causative (even passive 
according to W-O). And this is just in the area of verbal morphology in BH.

Conjunctions may be multifunctional; see:
Malchukov, Andrej L. 2004. “Towards a Semantic Typology of Adversative 
Contrast Marking.” Journal of Semantics 21: 177-198.

Demonstratives, interrogatives, and relatives may be multifunctional; see:
Showalter, Catherine. 1986. “Pronouns in Lyele.” Pages 205-216 in 
Pronominal Systems. Edited by Ursula Wiesemann. Schriftenreihe zur 
Linguistik 5. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.

On demonstrative and anaphoric multifunctionality, see:
Diessel, Holger. 1997. “The Diachronic Reanalysis of Demonstratives in 
Cross-Linguistic Perspective.” Chicago Linguistic Society 33: 83-97.
Diessel, Holger. 1999. Demonstratives: Form, Function, and 
Grammaticalization. Typological Studies in Language 42. 
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 1996. “Demonstratives in Narrative Discourse: A 
Taxonomy of Universal Uses.” Pages 205-254 in Studies in Anaphora. 
Edited by Barbara Fox. Typological Studies in Language 33. 
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 1997. Deiktikon, Artikel, Nominalphrase: Zur 
Emergenz syntaktischer Struktur. Linguistische Arbeiten 362. Tübingen: 
Max Niemeyer.
Goedegebuure, Petra M. 2003. “Reference, Deixis and Focus in Hittite: 
The Demonstratives ka- ‘This’, apa- ‘That’ and asi  ‘Yon’.” PhD diss., 
Universiteit van Amsterdam.
Bhat, D. N. S. 2005. “Third-Person Pronouns and Demonstratives.” Pages 
178-181 in The World Atlas of Language Structures. Edited by Martin 
Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil, and Bernard Comrie. Oxford: 
Oxford University Press.
Comrie, Bernard. 1997. “Pragmatic Binding: Demonstratives as Anaphors in 
Dutch.” Berkeley Linguistics Society 23: 51-61.
Gundel, Jeanette K., Nancy Hedberg, and Ron Zacharski. 1993. “Cognitive 
Status and the Form of Referring Expressions in Discourse.” Language 69: 
274-307.
Stirling, Lesley. 2001. “The Multifunctionality of Anaphoric 
Expressions: A Typological Perspective.” Australian Journal of 
Linguistics 21: 7-23.

On pronominal intensification and reflexive multifunctionality, see:
König, Ekkehard. 1995. “Focus Particles.” Pages 978-987 in Syntax: Ein 
internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung. 2 vols. Edited by 
Joachim Jacobs, Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld, and Theo 
Vennemann. Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 9. 
Belin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.
König, Ekkehard and Volker Gast. 2006. “Focused Assertion of Identity: A 
Typology of Intensifiers.” Linguistic Typology 10: 223-276.
König, Ekkehard and Peter Siemund. 2000. “Intensifiers and Reflexives: A 
Typological Perspective.” Pages 41-74 in Reflexives: Forms and 
Functions. Edited by Zygmunt Frajzyngier and Traci S. Curl. Typological 
Studies in Language 40. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
König, Ekkehard and Peter Siemund. 2005. “Intensifiers and Reflexive 
Pronouns.” Pages 194-197 in The World Atlas of Language Structures. 
Edited by Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil, and Bernard 
Comrie. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

On multifunctional PNG marking, see:
Cysouw, Michael. 2001. “The Paradigmatic Structure of Person Marking.” 
PhD diss., Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen.
Cysouw, Michael. 2003. The Paradigmatic Structure of Person Marking. 
Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Oxford 
University Press.
Helmbrecht, Johannes. 2004. “Personal Pronouns: Form, Function, and 
Grammaticalization.” Habilitationschrift, University of Erfurt.
Siewierska, Anna. 2004. Person. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. 
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Corbett, Greville G. 1991. Gender. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. 
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Corbett, Greville G. 2000. Number. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. 
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

On indefinite and interrogative multifunctionality, see:
Haspelmath, Martin. 1997. Indefinite Pronouns. Oxford Studies in 
Typology and Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2003. “The Geometry of Grammatical Meaning: Semantic 
Maps and Cross-Linguistic Comparison.” Pages 211-242 in The New 
Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language 
Structure: Volume 2. 2 vols. Edited by Michael Tomasello. Mahwah: 
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2005. “Indefinite Pronouns.” Pages 190-193 in The 
World Atlas of Language Structures. Edited by Martin Haspelmath, Matthew 
S. Dryer, David Gil, and Bernard Comrie. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

On the multifunctionality of modality, see:
van der Auwera, Johan and Andreas Ammann. 2005. “Overlap between 
Situational and Epistemic Modal Marking.” Pages 310-313 in The World 
Atlas of Language Structures. Edited by Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. 
Dryer, David Gil, and Bernard Comrie. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
van der Auwera, Johan and Vladimir A. Plungian. 1998. “Modality’s 
Semantic Map.” Linguistic Typology 2: 79-124.

On temporal and spatial multifunctionality (which Stephen Shead has 
elaborated briefly on in the Gen 1:1 thread), see:
Haspelmath, Martin. 1997. From Space to Time: Temporal Adverbial’s in 
the World’s Languages. Lincom Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 3. 
München: Lincom Europa.

And I could keep going on and on and on because multifunctionality in 
language is pervasive.

Regards,
David Kummerow.



>        David,
>
>        According to your multi-faceted description below, the poor Piel
> serves no function at all...
>
>        Let us remember again the well known case of "dibber".
>
>        Uri Hurwitz                                           Great Neck, NY
>
> "...the Piel,....  would seem to be multifunctional,
> with a verbal plurality function as well a
> factitive/causative/estimative of (generally) stative verbs.
>
> Regards,
> David Kummerow"