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: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 07:40:59 +0100


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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page