Biblical Hebrew Forum

[David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>]

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