3. An interesting point is made that "[t]o demonstrate that wayyiqtol is
a semantically independent conjunction, one has to show ... that the
widespread use of wayyiqtol with past reference is due to the semantic
meaning of the form, and not just a linguistic convention" (p.48). To my
mind, this is nonsense: linguistic convention (i.e., the regular choice
of speakers to use similar linguistic tokens) defines meaning. In other
words, the entrenchment of meaning is related to linguistic frequency.
The prising apart here of "semantic meaning" and "linguistic convention"
means that much ink is spilled in the dissertation upon a fruitless
quest for contexts in which "uncancellable semantic meaning" may be
ascertained.
4. Areas of research which quite potentially have much bearing on
aspects of discussion are neglected: a) the distribution of qatal and
yiqtol with temporal adverbs "yesterday" and "tomorrow"; b) in
conjunction with the present-tense uses of (we)qatal no investigation is
made of cosubordination, politeness, gnomics, and performatives; c) the
distribution of paragogic nun; d) the distribution of third-person
pronominal suffixes augmented with nun; e) the possibility of
exaggerated futures with qatal (presumably because this is in conflict
with the advanced methodology); and f) default use of qatal in
non-paratactic constructions being anterior. Now in one sense it does
not matter what we label a verb so long as we accurately describe its
range of use. However, it is useful for labelling to reflect
prototypical function as some sort of mnemonic. The debate, then, is
over what is seen to be the prototypical use of the different BH verb
conjugations. The trouble as I see it with the dissertation is that
because of its methodology of finding uncancellable meaning, it is
unable to convincingly demonstrate prototypical meaning. The reason is
that the BH verbs, as indeed verbs, words, etc in other languages, are
multifunctional, i.e. they have more than one function. This is
particularly so with qatal, which may be seen as an extreme case of
multifunctionality. Multifunctionality basically implies incomplete
grammaticalisation and fuzziness. However, what if that multifunctional
fuzziness is essentially, as is the case with qatal, the multifunction
of a verbal conjugation that can be (construnctionally?) used for
anterior, performatives, gnomics, hypothetical/conditional, exaggerated
futures, etc? That is, there is a fuzziness to the range of uses which a
methodology that starts with the premise that meaning solely falls into
either (the non-fuzzy categories) "cancellable meaning" and
"uncancellable meaning" is unable to describe or relate to. And a
related fault, then, is that linguistic convention is seen to have no
bearing on semantics. (I guess I should point out that the debate
concerning the prototypical function of the BH verbal conjugations could
similarly be had over other fuzzy areas of language: function words
[esp. when not completely grammaticalised], the meaning of lexical
items, etc etc etc [the list is basically endless due to the fact that
speakers are unable to have an exhaustive inventory of semantic and
pragmatic meanings upon which to draw: generalisation, economy,
polysemy, and conceptual grouping are central aspects of language]. As
such, I am unconvinced that the methodology rigorously followed in the
dissertation is able to produce fruitful results in existent linguistic
multifunctionality and if the area of investigation exhibits incomplete
grammaticalisation.
Hope this helps!
Sincerely,
David Kummerow.
_______________________________________________
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.