Hi Karl,Yes you did mention it before, and for that I thank you. I mentioned
Comments below:
...
> You have repeatedly mentioned the use of "yesterday", ...
>
Again, the issue is raised in the literature and potentially impacts
Rolf's work is why I raised it (eg in Buth's grammar). We've been over
this, so I won't reiterate (see my previous post to you), but to add
that I actually agree with Rolf on qatal being the same verb as weqatal.
weqatal is used differently, though, mainly as a cosubordinate verb,
sometimes in hypothetical/conditional constructions, and purpose/result
constructions, so this does not negate the fact that as qatal it is not
used.
An interesting question to ponder is: if an ancient Israelite were toIn each of the cases, in particular the last, I need more of the
utter the following to another, how would they be construed:
פָּקַדְנוּ אוֹתוֹ
נִפְקֹד אוֹתוֹ
אֲנִי פֹּקֵד אוֹתוֹ
> On 3/22/07, David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo at hotmail.com> wrote:I was right, I do have a more expansive understanding of reflexive
> ....
> >
> > 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.
>
> In this case, how many of these functions are the result of
> lexicographic methodology, and how much the result of different
> functions? Can you cite examples of each of all of these claimed uses?
> Sorry, I don't mean to put you on the hot grill, but I haven't seen
> all those functions in the hitpael. All I have seen is the reflexive
> usage, though my understanding of reflexive may be broader than your's
> or the authors' above.
>
Examples are from Anstey's article and dissertation:
Reflexive: Gen 24:64 "and she covered herself".
Body motion: Gen 24:40 "and he walked about".
Naturally reciprocal: Gen 42:1 "you look at each other".
Anticausative: Isa 29:14 "[insight] will vanish".
Generic passive: Prov 20:11 "a child is recognised [by his deeds]".
Waltke and O'Connor argue even for passive, see pp. 424ff.Sorry, I don't have access to that book.
French "se" covers the same range of functions as BH Hithpael. RussianThanks. I have noticed the paragogic nun, but as it has minimal affect
"-sja" misses reflexive but adds passive. Each of these similarly
presents problems for Rolf's methodology.
> ...
>
Regarding the questions, everybody is unanimous these days that
paragogic nun is only attached to the long prefix verb and ditto for the
third-person pronouns augmented with nun. I think the same could be said
about the status of the other features diagnostic of the short prefix
verb vis-a-vis the long prefix verb.
...Karl W. Randolph.
Regards,
David Kummerow.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.