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 09:39:12 +1000



As you observe the two groups are not mutually exclusive. 'Perfect' *can* make both the beginning and end visible but is not required to do so. This allows for overlap with what Rolf has called the 'imperfect' group. Unless you are willing to engage with Rolf's definitions it is impossible to discuss this objectively.

You continue to challenge Rolf to show how Genesis 12:1 is imperfect and not perfect and yet acknowledge that Rolf's definition allows for overlap between 'perfect' and 'imperfect'. This makes no sense on any level whatsoever.

James, neither Rolf nor I use the language of 'perfect' and 'imperfect'; rather, we use the aspectual terminology of 'perfective' and 'imperfective'. Linguistically, there is a difference, although Hebrew scholars have tended to use the language of 'perfect' when really they meant 'perfective'.

Now, I still do not see how Rolf's definition of imperfective can possibly suit wayyo'mer of Gen 12:1. The verb would include both the beginning and end of the speech event (not 'resultative' as per Rolf's definition and not interrupted so as to not include the end), hence perfective under both Rolf's definition and the traditional definition of perfective. Yet Rolf's claim is the WAYYIQTOL is consistently imperfective throughout the entire corpus.


You also continue to refuse to offer a concrete definition of your use of the terms. All it would take is a few lines of text to make it clear to us how you understand and use these terms.

I've provided Comrie's definition to which I agree.


Just to set you straight, I am undecided if their is an uncancellable meaning to the BH verb system. But if there is an uncancellable meaning then I am unaware of any other work than Rolf's that accounts so well for what that is. However, my real opinion is that I still hold a number of reservations because:

Well, we have a totally different opinion here. I do not think Rolf accounts well with the data at all. Much evidence which has bearing on the issue is left untreated in his work which I mention in my review.


a) We have no informants who can help us conclude the discussion
b) There is simply not enough data
c) Only a small percentage of the data we have allows for a complete analysis
d) The possibility exists that certain verbs allow for exceptions for semantic reasons (e.g. like 'think' in English)

You should therefore view my questions as aids to help you make your criticisms more concrete and academically acceptable rather than assuming I am against your position. How could I be against your position when you still have not defined it properly?

OK, that's fine. You kept pushing me to show how wayyo'mer in Gen 12:1 is imperfective, but I do not agree with this. Maybe you don't either, but please don't try to get me to say things which I don't accept.


In summary, I am (as yet) undecided but as it stands Rolf has shown a higher level of academic practice in his style of presentation and has succeeded in answering the question he posed (If the BH verb system has an uncancellable meaning, what is it?). You may have some good points to make but are losing the attention of many list members by your refusal to engage in good academic practice.

James, he has not succeeded in showing what the uncancellable meaning is. Regarding WAYYIQTOL, he's only shown that it may be imperfective in a minority of occurrences in the corpus. This says nothing about the other occurrences of WAYYIQTOL in the corpus.


James Christian


Regards,
David Kummerow.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page