From: Alviero Niccacci <sbfnet AT netvision.net.il>
To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Subject: Re: Niccacci & semantics
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 17:37:43 +0200
Title: Re: Niccacci & semantics
Dear B-Hebrew list members,
I know Randall Buth since several years
and I am grateful that he cared to comment on my work. We agree in
one basic point--on text grammar, or discourse analysis, but
otherwise disagree.
Here are some reactions to his posting.
- He writes that I "must collapse nominal clauses together with
x-qatal caluses !". I take this "must" as
meaning that the evidence brings me to that conclusion. Actually, I
starded my research with no presuppositions. I simply tried to
understand the function(s) of the verbforms and of the non-verbal
constructions of BH.
From a reading of the texts I saw that under certain circumstances a
second-position verb form plays the same function as a non-verbal
construction. I concluded that both structures are nominal--nominal
in function although they may contain a finite verbform.
- In my opinion this does not mean that I cannot "distinguish
the semantics of x-qatal from verbless clauses". I tried to show
that although the basic syntactic function is the same, the time
reference and aspect value are different. I do distinguish one from
the other.
- In one sense, Buth is right that I am "basically lacking a
semantic dimension". Actually, I am totally against imposing any
semantic dimension to the syntactic analysis. I think that syntactic
analysis is based on morphology and text analysis; the semantic
dimension can only be a consequence of the syntactic
functions.
In other words, I take into consideration
a verbform or a non-verbal construction in its morphological
structure and try to understand its function(s) from the texts. The
first challenge is to find good examples capable of throwing light on
that point. The way one has to translate a certain verbform or
non-verbal construction depends on its function. Semantic
considerations--such as the meaning of the root or term involved, or
the impact of the context on it, or whatever--come after and are
subservient to syntactic analysis.
As I suggested several times, the basic problem of BH syntax is to
understand the respective functions of verb-first versus verb-second
sentences. I suggested specific textual settings capable of
clarifying this issue. See, e.g., the following
essays--"Essential Hebrew Syntax", in: E. Talstra, _Narrative
and Comment. Contributions presented to Wolfgang Schneider_,
Amsterdam: Societas Hebraica Amstelodamensis, 1995, 111-125;
"Finite Verb in the Second Position of the Sentence. Coherence of
the Hebrew Verbal System": ZAW 108 (1996) 434-440; "Basic Facts
and Theory of the Biblical Hebrew Verb System in Prose", in: E.
Wolde, van (ed.), _Narrative Syntax and the Hebrew Bible. Papers of
the Tilburg Conference 1996_ (Biblical Interpretation Series 29),
Leiden - New York - Köln: Brill, 1997, 167-202.
- I hardly recognise myself in the examples of verbless clause,
x-verbal1 and x-verbal2 put forward by Buth. I would rather address
real BH texts and try to test the theory. This is what I did already
for several texts of BH prose. Recently I also begun testing the
theory in poetry.
Alviero Niccacci
On 02/10/99 (Fw: Niccacci & semantics) Randall
Buth wrote:
> From: yochanan bitan <ButhFam AT compuserve.com>
> To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
> Cc: b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
> Subject: Re: Niccacci & semantics
> Date: Wednesday, February 10, 1999 6:50 AM
>
> shalom Haverim,
>
> when comparing systems and discussing problems people need a
common playing
> field, which is why problems develop when quoting some
people:
>
> niccacci is basically lacking a semantic dimension to his
linguistic model.
>
> notice that in his model he must collapse nominal clauses
together with
> x-qatal clauses !
>
> he does not have a semantic framework for dividing these. he
does not have
> a semantic distinction for differing 'predication frames',
frames that may
> both generate an 'argument' at the start of the surface
clause.
> [friedrich did the same for old aramaic.]
>
> until niccacci can distinguish the semantics of x-qatal from
verbless
> clauses i would continue to caution students in their use of
him.
>
> i find that trying to generate surface output along his
theoretical lines
> produces a psychologically impossible/improbable language.
> [verbless: he is at the store. (fine)
> verbal: went-he to the store. (fine)
> x-verbal1: he is a wented-ing-to-the-store-kind-of-guy??? [this
is not the
> normal semantic function of BH x-qatal]
> x-verbal2: to-the-store is a wented-ing-kind-of-guy???
>
> better, semantically and syntactically with room for pragmatic
discussion:
> have a predication frame that allows fronting/pre-verb placement
of
> predication consitutents.
> in other words, a generative model of language exposes
niccacci's 2 'lists'
> as unworkable.]
>
> linguistic theory must deal with syntax, semantics and
pragmatics. deleting
> one dimension is not a step forward.
>
> braxot
> randall buth
Please, in your reply put the addressee name in the subject
=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=
Studium Biblicum Franciscanum Tel. +972
- 2 - 6282 936
POB 19424 - 91193 - Jerusalem Fax
+972 - 2 - 6264 519
Israel
Home Page:
http://198.62.75.1/www1/ofm/sbf/SBFmain.html
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Professors Email
mailto:sbfnet AT netvision.net.il
Students Email
mailto:sbfstud AT netvision.net.il
o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o