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: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 09:27:01 +1000



> The arguments above are very dangerous linguistically speaking. Each
> language must be analyzed in its own right, and it is fallacious to
> analyze dead languages in the light of living ones. There are more
> than 20 different analyses of perfective and imperfective aspects, so
> which one should we choose?

Actually, I think it is fallacious and dangerous to do otherwise. You can
suggest particular meanings for Hebrew verb forms but without native
speakers you have no way to know if that is indeed what they intend.
If a certain use of the verb in a hypothetical unattested case is acceptable
or not. At least, if you have a cross linguistic comparison from another
living language you can go ahead and show that it is possible to have
had such an interpretation. Knowing that something is possible but not
knowing if it is right is slightly better than not knowing whether it is
possible or right. Furthermore, if there are no cross linguistic
comparisons with living languages you have essentially a large ad-hoc
assumption regarding Hebrew. It is all very unsound.


Hi Yitzhak,

I could not agree more with this point.

I made this exact same point in my review but I have yet to see Rolf counter this arguement. I wrote (p.116):

"Dahl and Velupillai’s recent study of 222 languages (of which 101 made a traditional perfective || imperfective opposition; Dahl and Velupillai 2005: 266–81), in which a reanalysis of the traditional definitions of aspect was not required, would suggest that the typological tendency of language, if an aspectual opposition is made, conforms functionally to the traditional view. Furuli’s divergent claim requires functional justification in light of the strong typological tendency."

Regards,
David Kummerow.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page