b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum
List archive
- From: "Nir cohen - Prof. Mat." <nir AT ccet.ufrn.br>
- To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] no to aspect?
- Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 18:58:22 -0300
dear rolf,
-----------------------------
>>> De: Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>
Is the "semantic" meaning of YA$EN, 'asleep', also dynamic and
durative, or is it only static and durative?
>>> On Feb 5, 2011, at 6:35 AM, Rolf Furuli wrote:
>>>> 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.
------------------------
grammar is usually much simpler than grammatical theory. in theory
you want to classify EVERYTHING, in practice grammar will only
convey the relevant information and filter out the rest. you might call it the
principle of minimal action, just like in physics.
"the truth, ALL the truth...
...NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH!"
[in particular, grammar cannot attribute any fixed, absolute, immutable,
context-free dynamical value to a single word, the way you do.]
consider the following english phrases:
1) "As I was running today, it started raining".
2) "Everyday I run after lunch."
3) "When I was young I ran the Marathone once".
4) "I never ran in my life"
duration, and change, are relevant only to the first sentence; they can
be detected as existent in phrase 2,3, but are completely irrelevant; no
possible duration or change are detected in phrase 4. but "run" (a verb with,
supposedly, inherently finite duration and inherent change aspect) is the only
verb of 2-4.
the grammar (i.e. choice of tense) is derived ENTIRELY from the relevant
information in each sentence, ignoring the irrelevant part (e.g. duration of
the daily run in sentence 3).
if we apply this principle to BH, we immediately see the basic flaw of the
perfect/imperfect approach to qatal/yiqtol: it forces researchers to assume
that BH is the only language in the world whose grammar is grossly
inefficient. namely, its tense system fails to filter out verb information
irrelevant for the particular episode described.
as evident in e.g. gen. 1:10.
nir cohen
-
Re: [b-hebrew] no to aspect?,
Nir cohen - Prof. Mat., 02/07/2011
-
Re: [b-hebrew] no to aspect?,
Isaac Fried, 02/07/2011
-
Re: [b-hebrew] no to aspect?,
Nir cohen - Prof. Mat., 02/08/2011
- Re: [b-hebrew] no to aspect?, Isaac Fried, 02/08/2011
-
Re: [b-hebrew] no to aspect?,
Nir cohen - Prof. Mat., 02/08/2011
- Re: [b-hebrew] no to aspect?, Rolf Furuli, 02/08/2011
-
Re: [b-hebrew] no to aspect?,
Isaac Fried, 02/07/2011
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.