Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] On the history of Hebrew YIQTOL and the Hebrew verb

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] On the history of Hebrew YIQTOL and the Hebrew verb
  • Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2011 15:52:55 +0100

Dear Arnaud,

When you use such expressions as "conceptual absurdity" about a term known by all linguists, we speak beside one another. Therefore, I see no reason to continue this discussion with you.

Best regards,

Rolf Furuli




----- Original Message ----- From: "Rolf Furuli" <furuli AT online.no>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2011 1:40 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] On the history of Hebrew YIQTOL and the Hebrew verb

Dear Arnaud,

When we study a language and see that a clause has a particular meaning, a linguist will ask: Which part(s) of the clause cause this particular meaning? Is this meaning (for example tense) an intrinsic part of one or more of the constituents, or is the meaning caused by an interplay of different factors?
***
Yes
This is exactly what the issue is.
What is the exact influence of verbal forms on the ultimate meanings of sentences?
A.
***


When Randall used the example with BW) in a future setting (example 2) below), he is correct that the clause is not open-ended, as clause 1) below is. But his conclusion that this shows that the clause is not imperfective, is wrong. He simply confuses Aktionsart and aspect.

1) Tomorrow I will work.

2) Tomorrow I will come
***
sorry
but this is completely irrelevant.

You keep resorting to examples that do not extract the real meanings of verbal constructions.
A.
***


The verb BW) is either semelfactive (instantaneous) or telic (with the meaning "come in"). So the reason why 2) is not open-ended is the lexical meaning of the verb and the Aktionsart of BW). The verb "work" is dynamic and durative, and therefore 2) is open-ended.
***
Irrelevant and void.
A.
***





We often see in discussions of Hebrew verbs that
aspect is confused with lexical meaning or
Aktionsart. Therefore, it is important to give
clear definitions of the terms. Aspect is given
different definitions in the literature, often
psychological definitions. A person discussing
aspect chooses one of the definitions, and if
other persons use different definitions,
confusion arise. The only way to avoid this
"random choice of an aspect definition" of which
I am aware, is to use the basic parameters
"deictic center," "reference time" and "event
time." By using these univesal parameters, one
needs not to start with a particular aspect
definition, but the meaning of each aspect will
emerge after one has worked with the text for a
long period.
***
These "universal parameters" as you say seem to be drawn from a mix of Enunciative, Semantic and Grammatical theories.
I see that mix as descriptively troublesome.


You are wrong here. Both "deictic center"
****
that word means nothing.

Deixis refers to the circumstances when and where and how an utterance is uttered.
It does not have a center.
Circumstances are self-obvious.
This is already conceptual absurdity.
A.
***



and "event time" are
objective properties, and not a mix of anything. You may want to read Bernard Comtie's elementary books "Tense" and "Aspect," in order to understand that these are fundamental linguistic terms. Comrie also uses "reference time," but different linguists have slightly different definitions of this term. Therefore, clear-cut definitions are needed.
***
I'm afraid I have only a very low peer-review assessment of Mr. Bernard Comrie.

Arnaud Fournet
***





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page