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: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 07:38:11 +0100

Hi David,

Quoting David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>:



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.


No. His claim is that it may be consistently 'imperfective' throughout the corpus according to his refined definition of 'imperfective' but that only a minority of examples are clear enough analyse this.


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.


And that definition is? What parameters can be used to test a form fits it? Rolf has clearly defined these. You still have not. You keep referring to 'traditional' definitions and assume everybody has a common understanding of this.


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.


What kind of evidence? Are you implying that analysable sentences are not considered in Rolf's work?


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.

No I didn't. I asked you to demonstrate how it is perfective. You then misapplied Rolf's method to show this (only after several requests). Rolf showed you how you had misapplied the method. To this date you have not addressed this. Nor have you formally defined another system of testing the presence of what you keep calling the 'traditional' definition of perfective. Nor have you presented a test analysis of Genesis 12:1 that shows its perfective nature according to your test method. This behaviour makes it difficult for me to analyse your reasoning and distances me from whatever position you are trying to make (which to be honest is still unclear as you have not made it explicit).

In summary, you probably still have valid points to make but are not making them because you continue to refuse to engage in good academic practice.



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.


This is a misrepresentation of what Rolf is saying. Rolf is saying that the majority of sentences are in ambiguous contexts. He therefore analyses the unambiguous ones and claims that he finds them to conform to 100% pattern. He then makes the reasonable conclusion that the ambiguous sentences should show similar statistics to the unambiguous ones. i.e. he extrapolates.

If you are searching for a weak link in his argument you should therefore turn you attention to the unambiguous sentences and see if you agree with his analyses. Another possible weak link you may wish to attack is to attempt to discover unambiguous sentences which Rolf considers to be ambiguous. Of course, you would need to use the same method and parameters or attack the method and parameters themselves. Until now you have only agreed with the soundness of the method and parameters but failed to show that you understand them completely.

Until you start doing this it is hard to accept anything you say as academically sound.

James Christian


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