Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

David:

OK, define what you mean by perfective, imperfective, what YOU think
Rolf means by “perfective” and “imperfective”, do so in simple terms
on line, not referring to off line books to which we do not have
access.

You have been so far weird on your treatment of dialect that I want to
see something I can check up on in this discussion.

I don’t know what Rolf means by “perfective” and “imperfective” if he
is using different meanings than what is found in the grammar of such
as Russian, but that verse is neither perfective nor imperfective as
the terms are used in Indo-European languages. If you insist on the
Indo-European definitions, then you have set up a false dilemma
logical fallacy.

Back up your so far unsupported statements.

Karl W. Randolph.

On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 4:11 PM, David Kummerow<farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com> 
wrote:
>
>>
>> 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.