Hi James,
Here's how Rolf's thesis works as I understand it. It starts with the
assumption that a concept of uncancellable meaning exists in language
and that such a concept is necessary for understanding the verbal system
of a language (p.33). That such such a concept actually exists is never
defended in the thesis but is assumed on every page.
The aim of the thesis, then, to discover the "uncancellable meaning" of
the BH verbal forms (pp.33-34). Rolf's work is an honest work: he
follows his methodology scrupulously throughout the work. This leads him
to deny tense as an appropriate meaning of the verbal forms as tense
categories are not appropriate in every instance. Similarly, this leads
him to deny aspectual categories as traditionally understood to be
appropriate since they do not fit every occurrence. This then leads him
to redefine the aspectual terminology of perfective and imperfective
into something that works as he sees it for BH. As you can see, his
assumption that uncancellable meaning must exist in the verbal system
leads him directly down the path of even rejecting traditional aspectual
categories. The end result is conclusions on the BH verbal system which
he sees but I cannot see. I am unable to see how wayyomer in every
occurrence represents imperfective aspect. Sorry, but I just can't.
wayyomer typically refers to a perfective state of affairs.
"Similarly, this leadsappropriate since they do not fit every occurrence."
him to deny aspectual categories as traditionally understood to be
If we abandon the need to have every occurrence of a verbal form
instantiating the same meaning, then we are relieved from having to see
in every occurrence of a verbal form the same intrinsic meaning. In this
way, for people who view the BH verbal system as aspect-prominent, then
some occurrences of of a verb form which do not instantiate the regular
aspectual meaning can see an instance of the grammaticalization of the
verbal system from aspect to tense (so Cook's dissertation). For people
who view the BH verbal system as tense-prominant, then some occurrences
of a verb form which do not instantiate the normal tense meaning can
view such an occurrence as the aspectual heritage of the form still not
completely grammaticalized away.
It is difficult for me to see how operating with the assumption of
"uncancellable meaning" can operate in areas of language which face
grammaticalization. I wrote in my review (pp.131-132):
Regards,
David Kummerow.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.