Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Nir,

I have never claimed that EVERYTHING in a language can be classified, 
at least not clearly so. Here you misunderstand my position. But I 
believe that some parts of a language are uncancellable, and I am 
looking for such parts.

You also misunderstand my words about the verb "run." The issue here 
is not grammar, but lexical semantics. Please consider example 1). 
What is described here is a situation of running, and this situation 
is durative (continuous) and dynamic (it entails change). That I 
never did what I have described, is irrelevant; lexical meaning is 
not dependent on actions, but actions can be described by the use of 
lexical meaning. So I repeat:  the lexical meaning of run entails 
durativity and dynamicity, and these properties can never be 
cancelled, ragardless of which tense or aspect is used in connection 
with "run.".

1) I have never in my life lifted my legs, quickly and rhythmically, 
one after the other, in order to move quickly the two hundred meters 
from my house to my office.


The basic problem with your examples is that you mix actions in the 
real world with the words that describe them. In order to avoid chaos 
in our studies of Hebrew, we must make a clear distinction between 
the acts in the real world, the Aktionsart of the words used to 
describe these acts, and the conjugations that also are a part of 
this description.


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli






> 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
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew