Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] cancellable dynamicity

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] cancellable dynamicity
  • Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 15:53:39 +1000


Hi Rolf,

What you say is simply a cop-out. There is strong evidence presented both on this list and in my review that semantics should not be defined as meaning which is uncancellable. Language can indeed communicate even in the face of semantics which is cancellable. The case of Australian (?) use of "plod" is a case in point: it communicates effectively, even though a meaning which is uncancellable cannot be discerned. There is a range of semantic frames which the word triggers, and communication is successful in each instance.

I dispute the fact that you have presented "arguments against this that you and David Kummerow have presented betrays a lack of elementary linguistic knowledge". You have not defended your position in the face of the evidence we have brought, only stated your basic premise again and again. I have not seen you interact in any way with the linguistic literature I marshalled against your position in my review. Because of all this, I would still assert your premise of semantics as uncancellable is undefended and unsupported.

Sure, lets get back to BH -- why not try to demonstrate for us that imperfective aspect is the uncancellable meaning of WAYYIQTOL across the uses of wayyomer?

Regards,
David Kummerow.

BTW. I would sit up and listen to Steven Shead. He has a PhD in BH semantics, and his dissertation is one of the best and most valuable reads in BH linguistics for years.


Dear Yitzak,

You should read a few books of elementary linguistics. In any
language we can speak of grammatical and ungrammatical expressions.
There are unchangeable (synchronic) rules that govern the use of
language, and many words have properties that cannot be changed. If
this were not true, communication between individuals would be very
difficult. To deny that there are unchangeable properties in any
language simply is ridiculous.

So the arguments against this that you and David Kummerow have
presented betrays a lack of elementary linguistic knowledge. This is
a discussion list of BH, so let us get back to the Hebrew language.

Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page