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: David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] b-hebrew Uncancellable meaning and Hebrew verbs
  • Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 09:11:36 +1000



Subject:
Re: [b-hebrew] b-hebrew Uncancellable meaning and Hebrew verbs
From:
K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
Date:
Mon, 6 Jul 2009 08:23:02 -0700
To:
B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>

To:
B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>


James, Rolf and others:

The argument below as stated I find as a false dilemma logical fallacy.

On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 3:00 AM, David Kummerow<farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
wrote:
Hi James,

Well, I'd like for you to explain how it may be analysed imperfectively.
As far I take the default construal of wayyo'mer in Gen 12:1 in its
context, event time is prior to the deictic centre, thus past. The
action refers to the whole of the speech event, not some part of it, so
therefore perfective. (God said all of what he said, not part of it.)

Like I said, please explain how this verb could possibly be taken as
imperfective in its context.

Regards,
David Kummerow.

By not interacting with what he admitted elsewhere that Rolf found
himself constrained to redefine “perfective” and “imperfective” for
the purposes of his dissertation, because the forms are not
grammaticalizations of the perfective and imperfective aspects as
known from, for example, Russian, the above argument becomes nonsense.

The argument could be made that Rolf would have been better served by
inventing neologisms and defining them so as to prevent confusion
between a common understanding of the terms “perfective” and
“imperfective” and what Rolf means by those terms. Personally, that’s
probably what I’d do. Though right now I am simply calling them Qatal
and Yiqtol and saying that I see them as grammaticalizations of . . .
When David admits that Rolf had redefined the terms but David doesn’t
interact based on that redefinition, that effectively makes his
argument nonsense.

Karl W. Randolph.



Hi Karl,

Even his redefined definitions don't fit -- that's the point I've been trying to make. When Rolf repeatedly dodges examples like wayyo'mer in Gen 12:1 simply highlights this. I pointed out how it may be taken as perfective under a traditional definition. It remains for Rolf to demonstrate under his refined definition of imperfective aspect. I do not understand at all why you expect *me* to show how it's imperfective under his analysis. That's the whole point. I am unable to see how this is at all possible. Hence my questions about this. So I ask the question and then it just gets turned back on me to demonstrate that it can't be what Rolf says it is. Then I do this and then I'm condemned for this as well because I didn't say what Rolf says. This is just crazy and dysfunctional.

So now since Rolf, James, and Vadim all dodge the question -- can you please show me how wayyo'mer in Gen 12:1 is imperfective?

Thanks,
David Kummerow.





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page