Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Denominative vs Deverbal

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Bekins <pbekins AT fuse.net>
  • To: David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>, b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Denominative vs Deverbal
  • Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 15:22:58 -0500

Fred and David,

I just wanted to let you know that I am not ignoring this thread, but I've been quite busy the last couple of days and I really don't have anything substantial to add. I agree that there seems to be a bias towards denominativization against deverbalization, and it may indeed stem from the fact that nouns are somehow viewed as more basic than verbs.

I just read Cohen's "La phrase nominale et l'evolution du system verbal en Semitique" in which he argues that the versatility of the verbless clause in Semitic drives a cycle of change in Semitic verbal systems by introducing new verbal forms built on the syntax of nominal predicates, an idea with which I substantially agree. However, this is an issue of grammaticalization where a lexical form acquires a grammatical function. The issue of denominativization vs deverbalization is mostly within the realm of lexicon and word formation.

I would guess that there would be a group of words whose meaning is more naturally nominal and a group whose meaning is more naturally verbal so that it would be easy to guess which one came first, but most words probably fall somewhere in between. I would be interested if anyone knows of any research into the topic.

Peter Bekins

On Feb 11, 2009, at 4:24 PM, David Kummerow wrote:


Hi Fred,

Not sure if you were meaning to send this privately or not; I'll keep it private in case.

That is another good question. In terms of Hebrew or Semitic linguistics, I very much doubt that the question is addressed. Certainly it wouldn't be in any depth.

Cross-linguistically, the category of "verb" and the category of "noun" may generally be discernible, although any one language's parts-of-speech may have a distribution that is smaller or wider than another language's (see esp. Croft's _Radical Construction Grammar_). It is the category of "adjective" which is very tricky to isolate cross-linguistically (see Stassen's _Intransitive Predication_).

So since "noun" and "verb" are reasonably basic to language cross- linguistically (I realise generativists will state this much stronger than I), denominativization vis-a-vis deverbalization is likely to be a complex question to address. I wish I had time to do some research to see if anyone treats your important question satisfactorily. I checked Lehmann's book on grammaticalization just now hoping there might be something, but no luck.

Regards,
David.


Peter & David (et al.),
I have often wondered about this: how can we know that a verb is denominative rather than the noun being deverbal? I have read a fair amount of theoretical and historical linguistics (Hebrew and general), but never seen this discussed.
It seems that the theory of denominativization assumes that nouns precede verbs in the development of a language; has this ever been demonstrated?
I'm not arguing against it, just wondering how sure we can be that things worked/happened this way.
Peace.
Fred
P.S. My students had just read the chapter on the piel, and one asked (to general head-nodding), "So what difference does this make, anyway? I mean, why does it really matter that we know that these verbs are piel, since they just sound normal?" A very interesting discussion ensued, as you might imagine.
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 5:44 PM, David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com <mailto:farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>> wrote:
Gday Peter,
I had the thought when I was writing this that someone might pick me up
on this. Sorry, I agree that the Piel also has a denominative function,
and I did not mean to imply that it doesn't. I only left it out as it is
the minor of the functions of the Piel, I think. But that's a hunch and
I would need to do some research to see if it is accurate. Jenni likely
lists the statistics, but his volume is in my son's bedroom. In any
case, we agree as to the functions of the Piel.
Now regarding the question of research comparing denominatives across
the various binyanim, that is a great question! I cannot think of anyone
who has done this. It would therefore make, I think, for a good phd
topic for someone looking for one in Hebrew or Semitic linguistics. It
would be quite valuable in my opinion.
Regards,
David Kummerow.
> David wrote:
>
> > Of course, as I've stated previously, the verbal plurality function
> > of the Piel I take as one of its functions, with a resultative/
> > causative/estimative function of (generally) stative verbs being
> > its other main function, as Jenni and others have shown.
> >
> > Regards,
> > David Kummerow.
>
> The qal, hifil, and piel themes are also used as denominatives. Jenni
> and Ryder seem to disagree as to whether the piel as a denominative
> functions the same as it does when a factitive. Stuart Creason in his
> U Chicago dissertation _Semantic classes of Hebrew verbs_ deals with
> the denominative function briefly, but his focus is more on the
> relationship of the stems themselves. Do you know of any study that
> compares qal, piel, and hifil denominatives, either for Hebrew or
> Semitic in general, to see if there is any rhyme or reason for which
> types of noun prefer a certain binyan?
>
> Peter Bekins
>
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
--
--)---------------
Fred Putnam
Philadelphia Biblical University
215-702-4502 (office/voicemail)
215-393-9683 (home)
www.fredputnam.org <http://www.fredputnam.org> (website)






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page