Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>]

The Hebrew root (say, NZL, NPL, $PL) represents a material state,  
nothing dynamic.

Isaac Fried
Boston University

On Jun 30, 2009, at 6:47 PM, Yitzhak Sapir wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew