Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 7:16 PM, K Randolph wrote:

>> 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.
>>
> In Biblical Hebrew it does not mean specifically “rainwater”, rather
> in the Bible it is used with well water and water from springs and
> streams. In Song of Songs 4:16 the verb is used with spices, not
> water. The few times it is used in connection with clouds, even there
> it can be used in the same way as we say in English that “clouds pour
> down water”. Another thing I noticed with NZL is that it is never used
> in the Bible apart from a poetic context. So much for the
> lexicographic considerations.

Hello Karl,

Whether NZL is used only in poetic contexts or not, the fact of the
matter is that NZL does appear to lose those attributes that Olsen
claims are not cancelable.  Now, the question might be -- does this
mean that NZL is not inherently dynamic, etc.  But the actual
identification of dynamic, etc. attributes is relatively subjective.  It
depends on some common notion and understanding of semantics.
Does NZL imply some kind of change?  I can't be sure, because
to me it seems to imply the same kind of elements (movement,
primarily) that is present in other dynamic situations (run) but
how do I know?  Olsen says that a wink or a cough is not durative
-- it is instantaneous.  This is actually debated in studies by
others who study lexical aspect.  The idea of a dynamic verb losing
its dynamicity when used in construct clauses as a participle is
present also in 1 Ki 14:28 t? hrcym, and Ezek 40:44 l$kwt $rym.
It is really hard to see in these  phrases any of the original
dynamicity that marked the original nouns, and in these cases
rwc 'run' and $yr 'sing' are explicitly verbs that are identified by
Olsen as dynamic.  Olsen's research may be useful in studies
of lexical aspect, but it is important to understand that even
experts in lexical aspect don't always accept her conclusions,
and may in some cases modify, reject, or build upon them.  If we
force ourselves to understand phrases such as "t? hrcym" --
perhaps the room where the "runners" stood awaiting orders --
as dynamic, we are letting the theory interpret the evidence
(since the semantics of the sentence are the evidence for
theories of semantics) rather than let the evidence lead us to the
theory.  It's a recipe for circular argumentation.  Incidentally, Olsen's
theory may be more attuned to Modern English where "room of the
running" or "bottle of the raining" are not as common.  Naturally,
most research on lexical aspect is directed at Modern English.
This does not always mean it is immediately applicable to other
languages.

Yitzhak Sapir