Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 7:35 AM, Rolf Furuli wrote:
> 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.

Hello Rolf,

I did not expect this type of response from you.

"nzl" and "nd nzlym" are BH terms, and so this discussion is explicitly
appropriate to BH.

I read some online works by Olsen prior to writing the post.  To tell you
the truth, I'm confused.  I'm not sure what is cancelled but I'm sure one
of {durativity, dynamicity, telicity} of "nzl" is cancelled.  Let us take the
term "tzl kt'l ?mrty" -- "let my word rain down like light rain" (Deut 32:2).
nzl here is an activity that has a specific end and takes a specific
period of time, so it is durative and telic.  I think that when the rain
drops, it also changes.  It becomes a pool of water, it changes position,
so I really think it is dynamic as well.  I'm not sure if Olsen also sees it
that way.  In one place she identifies "roll" as a dynamic action.
Elsewhere she identifies "pour" as an activity (perhaps, the difference
is that "pour" is meant as an action performed on an object, whereas
nzl is more in the sense of 'pouring rain', 'drop').  But this is the problem.
How do I know what the word means and whether it is dynamic or telic
or durative independent of your theory?  In the phrase under discussion,
"nd nzlym," the term has lost its semantic properties and is perhaps
still durative (it can stand a long time) but no change or end of the action
is present.  I do not see how "roll" is different from "nzl" or "flow", and
"roll" is a word Olsen identifies as an event (that is, it is dynamic).

Since the terms are BH terms, there has to be some kind of way to
objectively determine the properties in BH, not in some other period
of time or related dialect.  This means in part that we cannot use the
types of tests Olsen uses (where she constructs a sentence such
as "What the ball did was roll", "What the rain did was pour") because
those sentences require us to create new semantically meaningful
sentences in BH and we cannot be sure the sentences we create are
semantically meaningful (we have no native speakers to interrogate on
that point).

Rather than telling me I'm ridiculous or telling me to go read books on
the subject (you didn't even give suggestions as to what books I should
read), why don't you step up and simply explain the theory.  Personally,
I really don't have problems reading books or resources in general.  But
here, I feel that telling me to go read stuff is simply trying to cop out.
After all, from the way you treat David, it seems that even if someone
with sufficient training in linguistics reads a lot of books on the subject
you may conclude he misunderstood them or misrepresents you.  And
you are the expert in this topic where it applies to BH.  So let's hear it
straight from you.  How do we know if "nzl" is marked as durative,
dynamic, or telic, in BH?  How do we objectively determine this?
Why isn't "nd nzlym" a case where the verb has lost some of these
properties?

I personally don't know if there are or are not unchangeable properties
in any language.  I don't know if it is true that had there not been
unchangeable properties we will not be able to communicate.  If you
have a position on this issue (and you seem to hold the position that
there are unchangeable properties in any language, and had there not
been, we would not be able to communicate), then you ought to prove
it.  But I don't see how it relates to BH directly.  Anyway, if you're up
to proving it, go ahead an prove it.  If you're not, say you're not going
to prove it.  But please don't call someone who denies it ridiculous.
That's no proof.

So back to the question:
Is NZL / NZLYM marked for telicity? durativity? dynamicity?  Why and
how doI know that it is marked (or not marked) in BH?
Is "ND NZLYM" telic? durative? dynamic?  Again, how do I know?
After we have both answers we can compare and say that if NZLYM
has had its durative, dynamic, or telic attributes cancelled.

On the face of it, what appears to be going on is that NZLYM, generally
a term for a verb that is at least telic, durative, dynamic, is used here
as a noun only.  It generally means "rainwater" because rainwater is
something that drops down/NZL from the sky.  But here, it has lost its
verbal semantics and means "rainwater" even when that rainwater is
stored in a bottle.  The poetry uses this term because it emphasizes
the miracle.

Yitzhak Sapir