Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] no to aspect

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
  • To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] no to aspect
  • Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2011 12:35:39 +0100


Dear Randall,

Your characteristic of my methodology is wrong! Before I started with languages, I was studying natural sciences. A fundamental principle here is to start with the smallest possible unit. I found that this principle also can be used in the study of languages. The more units we study at the same time, the less certain are our conclusions.

Another important principle in the natural sciences is that our definitions must be clear-cut, so others can test our conclusions. Therefore, I ask for clear and understandable definitions of the terms that are used in the study of Hebrew.

It is not true that I have no room for (A1+B1+C1) vs (A2+B2+C2), if I understand you correctly. There is much variation inside a language, and very few things are static or unchangeable. My methodology certainly has room for variation. However, I reject unclear definitions that cannot be tested, or the use of terms such as tense, mood, and aspect, where the user refuses to give his or her definitions.

I give one example things that are A, B, or C, with no variants.

Genesis 18:7 "And Abraham ran to the herd."

The verb "run" is dynamic (indicating change) and durative (indicating continuous action). Regardless of whether the verb is expressed as a prefix form, a suffix form, a participle, or an infinitive, it will always be dynamic and durative. These two properties of this verb represent semantic meaning and are uncancellable.

Then I give two examples of A1 and A2.

Genesis 6:13 "The earth is full of violence."

Genesis 26:15 "The Philistines filled them with earth."

In 6:13, ML) is stative, and in 26:15 it is fientive, and the examples show conversational pragmatic implicature; the properties of the verb are changeable.


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli




Correct. Rolf works from a methodology where things are all A or B or C or
nothing, His model has no room for (A1+B1+C1) vs (A2+B2+C2). Cognitive
Linguistics has room for this latter.


Thank you for your response. Rolf's answer to me sounded like he does not
agree
with the definitions given in your review article and Andrason's article. I
think there is a lot more of the both/and equation in Hebrew verb patterns
rather than either/or. I think your article and Andrason's seem to make
that


--
Randall Buth, PhD
www.biblicalulpan.org
randallbuth AT gmail.com
Biblical Language Center
Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page