Note that grammaticalisation can also EXTEND meaning. There's plenty of
stuff on this in the linguistic literature. Regarding BH verbs, this is
likely to have occurred with, say, the hithpael. The range of meanings
is neatly described by Anstey 2005: 74-76, ie reflexive, grooming/body
motion, naturally reciprocal, anticausative, and generic passive. It
likely that meaning has been extended over time towards the passive, but
it has not lost its reflexive function. Some, eg W-O, claim that it
expresses even the passive and not just generic/gnomic passive. But do
you see the problem if I were to follow your method? What is the
uncancellable semantics denoted by the hithpael binyan? The more we move
to "passive" the less "reflexive" the semantic, but the more "passive"
the semantics, the less "reflexive". However, similarity exists between
anticausative and generic passive and similarly reflexive and body
motion and reciprocal. But if I were to strictly follow your approach
you have applied to the verbal system, I am indeed very hard pressed to
find a common denominator between all of these "functions"....
...
Regards,
David Kummerow.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.