Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Use and Misuse of Waw in Verb Tenses
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 07:45:38 +0200
Dear list-memebers,
For the benefit of those following this discussion I will say a few
words about "semantic meaning" (uncancellable meaning), which seems to
be a strange animal in the minds of many. However, the concept is not
strange at all but very simple.
In Hebrew we have the verb $YR ("to sing"), which signals an action
which is durative and dynamic (dynamic=change). Regardless of whether
this root is used as an infinitive, a participle, a WAYYIQTOL, or as a
YIQTOL these two properties are always the same. We can say that this
root is marked for durativity and dynamicity, and these properties can
never be taken away from this root. This is semantic (uncancellable)
meaning, and the existence of this root (and thousands of other roots
with similar characteristics) *proves* (is not only evidence of) that
uncancellable semantic meaning can be pinpointed in a dead language.
The default interpretation of the root ML) is "to be full," which
signals stativity. However, in clauses where this verb takes an object
or there is an adverbial, the meaning can be "to fill.". This shows
that stativity applied to ML) is not semantic meaning, but only
conversational pragmatic implicature (it can change). In fact, any
Hebrew verb whose default interpretation is stativity can have a
fientive interpretation as well in other contexts. Thus, stativity in
Hebrew is not a semantic property.
The important question in connection with this discussion is whether it
is possible to find semantic meaning in the WAYYIQTOL and the YIQTOL,
and in that case, whether this semantic meaning is similar or
different. However, that semantic meaning can be pinpointed in a dead
language is beyond question.
Best regards
Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo
Re: [b-hebrew] Use and Misuse of Waw in Verb Tenses
, (continued)