> The arguments above are very dangerous linguistically speaking. Each
> language must be analyzed in its own right, and it is fallacious to
> analyze dead languages in the light of living ones. There are more
> than 20 different analyses of perfective and imperfective aspects, so
> which one should we choose?
Actually, I think it is fallacious and dangerous to do otherwise. You can
suggest particular meanings for Hebrew verb forms but without native
speakers you have no way to know if that is indeed what they intend.
If a certain use of the verb in a hypothetical unattested case is acceptable
or not. At least, if you have a cross linguistic comparison from another
living language you can go ahead and show that it is possible to have
had such an interpretation. Knowing that something is possible but not
knowing if it is right is slightly better than not knowing whether it is
possible or right. Furthermore, if there are no cross linguistic
comparisons with living languages you have essentially a large ad-hoc
assumption regarding Hebrew. It is all very unsound.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.