Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Verb Stem Confusion

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Verb Stem Confusion
  • Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2009 07:33:44 +1100


Hi Uri,

Please forgive me if I have misunderstood you. Here's what you said:

"According to your multi-faceted description below, the poor Piel
serves no function at all..."

That is, I take it that you mean that because I have asserted that the Piel has two functions that it doesn't have any function. As I've pointed out, this is not correct. Many constructions (using the term widely to mean simply any form-to-meaning pairing) in language are multifunctional. This does not mean that they have no function, only that they don't have one single or sole function. I have not asserted that "the poor Piel serves no function at all"; rather, I have asserted that the Piel instantiates a verbal plurality function as well as a causative/resultative/estimative function of (generally) stative verbs. Please explain to me how saying that a construction has two functions means that the construction serves no function. I do not understand. My reading of the linguistic literature, some of which I referenced in my previous post, points to the fact that multifunctionality is the order of the day in language, but that this does not imply that simply because a construction is multifunctional that it serves no function at all. Where is your specific evidence that this is in fact the case?

I raised the literature which substantiates the argument for the Piel having a verbal plurality function. Jenni's monograph on the Piel is an example for the substantiation of the argument for the Piel having a causative/resultative function for stative verbs. If your linguistic persuasion doesn't allow for multifunctionality, then it would seem that you need to take issue with one of these analyses and remove it so as to restore the Piel to having a single function. (But then you would need to move on to the Niphal, Hithpael, etc., etc.)

Regards,
David Kummerow.


David, If you had understood my intent below , you would not have attacked my sentence, linguistically or otherwise.
However, my concern for poor Piel's welfare is increasing...
Cheers,
Uri Hurwitz Great Neck, NY
" Hi Uri,

Linguistically-speaking, your claim here is simply false and there is no evidence to substantiate your position....
Regards,
David Kummerow. "
> " David,
..... " the poor Piel serves no function at all..."

Uri Hurwitz Great Neck, NY







------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page