Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] b-hebrew Uncancellable meaning and Hebrew verbs

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: James Read <J.Read-2 AT sms.ed.ac.uk>
  • To: David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] b-hebrew Uncancellable meaning and Hebrew verbs
  • Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 11:13:44 +0100

Hi David,

I haven't read your article and don't where it is. I'm guessing from comments in this email that your basic position is that different forms have different uses and that there is generally a usage which occurs frequently enough to be the default understanding. If so, then we seem to agree on this point.

May I make an observation? Very often in all fields of research we see a flame war of some kind, the opposing parties of which, at first glance, seem to have contradictory views. However, on closer inspection these flame wars generally boil down to minor misunderstandings and that, in actual fact, the two parties seem to be defending almost the exact same position but with different approaches that blind the opponents from realising just how similar their position is. This seems to me to be what is happening between you and Rolf.

When we analyse your positions closely you both seem to be saying almost the exact same thing but with different approaches. You both seem to concur that:

1) pragmatics and semantics both have influences
2) pragmatics can cancel default semantics
3) the pragmatics in our hebrew corpus show that tense is often cancelled
4) the pragmatics in our hebrew corpus show that aspect is often cancelled
5) the corpus shows that hebrew verbs have different uses as Rolf's statistics show

It seems to me that the reason you seem to be blinded to the fact that you are arguing an almost exact stance as Rolf is that you seem to be stuck on this uncancellable meaning thing and Rolf's conclusions of the uncancellable meaning of the verb forms. Rolf has already made it quite clear that the uncancellable meaning thing is actually a very small part of the study. The most salient part of the study, and what you seem to be missing, is his analysis of the verbs and the statistics he has gathered which show the various uses of the verbs and that both tense and aspect are often cancelled. Rolf has also made it clear that he accepts the possibility that there may be no uncancellable meaning to the verb forms but has shown that if there is an uncancellable meaning that his study attempts to explain what it is.

At the end of the day it really makes little difference if there is or is not an uncancellable meaning. It is very unlikely that the hebrews were conscious of such a meaning when they used the verb forms. What they were conscious of (I conclude by introspection) was the intended usage they had in mind each time they used the verb forms. So the really interesting question is "What signals can we reliably use to discern the intended usage?" rather than "What is the hypothetical uncancellable meaning that the hebrews were unaware of?".

The great value of Rolf's study is the statistics he has gathered using his method of analysing the verbs. This gives us a starting point to consider the different usages and ways of identifying them reliably. And so, as I have said before, if you really wish to give a worthwhile critique of Rolf's work, it's high time you moved on from the uncancellable meaning thing and moved onto Rolf's technique of analysis.

I would like to invite you one more time to analyse a section of the corpus using Rolf's method to see if your results have any major disagreements with Rolf's.

Hi Rolf,

would it be possible to provide a computerised index of the categorised verb forms so that we can apply your method and see if we agree with your analyses?

James Christian

Quoting David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>:

Hi James,

Hi David,

you keep on attacking uncancelability as if it is, in some way,
sufficient to undermine Rolf's analysis of the uses of the verbs in
biblical hebrew. To the best of my recollection (correct me if I am
wrong) you have not stated a concrete position that you hold with
respect to the various verb forms but various statements seem to
indicate that you uphold other traditional analyses.

I have in fact stated my concrete views in my article in KUSATU 8-9
(2008) 63-95 and at times on this list.


May I point out to you that your position on uncancellability of meaning
seems to undermine your being able to hold any kind of position on the
meaning of verb forms?

Not true. Please read my article. Also see my comments about
prototyicality etc on this list.

You yourself are arguing that meaning can be
cancelled by context. So how could you then defend any particular position?

By way of defining semantics prototypically, not uncancellably.


I think you may be able to read Rolf's work better if you approach it
this way. Instead of assuming that the work falls down without the
foundation of uncancellability you could ask the question 'If there was
an uncancellable meaning what would it be?'.

It does in fact fall down because uncancellablity of meaning as I've
demonstrated in my review "controls" the interpretation of the results.
Uncancellablity of meaning cannot be assumed given the wide
cross-linguistic evidence regarding multifunctionality etc.

And like I've said on this list: part of the problem with Rolf's
position is when we get down to actual details of the text. I've
repeatedly asked over the last few years to be shown how wayymer (just
as one example!) can be construed imperfectively. That is, assuming that
the imperfective aspect of WAYYIQTOL is uncancellable, how is this to be
seen from wayyomer examples in the text?

I think then you can see
the true value of Rolf's work. You can then see that his analysis shows
that tense is not uncancellable to the verb forms.

Of course. But Rolf is also honest in admitting and show that
traditionally-defined aspect doesn't fit either. And so because he's
after the so-called uncancellable meaning, he then has to modify the
definition of imperfective and perfective aspect so loosely that they
can be sort of made to fit. I say "sort of" because, again, when we get
down to examples, I simply am unable to see how his definition still
fits -- hence my repeated asking to be shown concretely how wayyomer is
imperfective in aspect.

This seems to me to
be one of the most salient points of the study. This, of course, does
not mean that verb forms were never used without a tense in mind. The
possibility exists that there are different usages that conform to
different patterns. It would be interesting if somebody followed up
Rolf's work to explore this issue.

We can take for example English verbs. Usually there is a usage which we
consider to be the default. e.g.

I play football every Thursday evening
Jill goes to church on Sundays
Fred works in the factory

These examples illustrate a default of repeated action expressed by the
present simple in English. However, this default can easily be cancelled
by context. e.g.

A man walks into a bar and says 'Ouch!'.

Context reveals a story in the past. The default can also be cancelled
for semantic reasons. e.g.

He thinks she's lying

Certain verbs, as above, can use the present simple with a present sense.

Anyway, all this aside, if you really wish to attack Rolf's study I
would suggest applying his method of analysis to any given text and
seeing if you can find fault with the method. Your attack on
uncancellability really isn't going anywhere. Because such an attack
undermines every interpretation of the verb forms.

James, I see it every day not working when I read the text! Hence I
simply asked a concrete question regarding just one (!) example --
wayyomer. Two or three years ago when I asked this question Rolf ignored
it, and it seems like that's happening again.


James Christian




Regards,
David Kummerow.
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew





--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page