Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

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
> ***