Hi David,
I haven't read your article and don't where it is. I'm guessing from comments in this email that your basic position is that different forms have different uses and that there is generally a usage which occurs frequently enough to be the default understanding. If so, then we seem to agree on this point.
May I make an observation? Very often in all fields of research we see a flame war of some kind, the opposing parties of which, at first glance, seem to have contradictory views. However, on closer inspection these flame wars generally boil down to minor misunderstandings and that, in actual fact, the two parties seem to be defending almost the exact same position but with different approaches that blind the opponents from realising just how similar their position is. This seems to me to be what is happening between you and Rolf.
When we analyse your positions closely you both seem to be saying almost the exact same thing but with different approaches. You both seem to concur that:
1) pragmatics and semantics both have influences
2) pragmatics can cancel default semantics
3) the pragmatics in our hebrew corpus show that tense is often cancelled
4) the pragmatics in our hebrew corpus show that aspect is often cancelled
5) the corpus shows that hebrew verbs have different uses as Rolf's statistics show
It seems to me that the reason you seem to be blinded to the fact that you are arguing an almost exact stance as Rolf is that you seem to be stuck on this uncancellable meaning thing and Rolf's conclusions of the uncancellable meaning of the verb forms.
Rolf has already made it quite clear that the uncancellable meaning thing is actually a very small part of the study.
The most salient part of the study, and what you seem to be missing, is his analysis of the verbs and the statistics he has gathered which show the various uses of the verbs and that both tense and aspect are often cancelled.
Rolf has also made it clear that he accepts the possibility that there may be no uncancellable meaning to the verb forms but has shown that if there is an uncancellable meaning that his study attempts to explain what it is.
At the end of the day it really makes little difference if there is or is not an uncancellable meaning. It is very unlikely that the hebrews were conscious of such a meaning when they used the verb forms. What they were conscious of (I conclude by introspection) was the intended usage they had in mind each time they used the verb forms. So the really interesting question is "What signals can we reliably use to discern the intended usage?" rather than "What is the hypothetical uncancellable meaning that the hebrews were unaware of?".
The great value of Rolf's study is the statistics he has gathered using his method of analysing the verbs.
This gives us a starting point to consider the different usages and ways of identifying them reliably. And so, as I have said before, if you really wish to give a worthwhile critique of Rolf's work, it's high time you moved on from the uncancellable meaning thing and moved onto Rolf's technique of analysis.
I would like to invite you one more time to analyse a section of the corpus using Rolf's method to see if your results have any major disagreements with Rolf's.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.