Again, from John ________________________________ James Spinti E-mail marketing, Book Sales Division Eisenbrauns, Good books for more than 35 years Specializing in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Studies jspinti at eisenbrauns dot com Web: http://www.eisenbrauns.com Phone: 260-445-3118 Fax: 574-269-6788
Begin forwarded message: > > ****************** > Dear Rolf, > > Sorry I assumed that you would be offended by a perceived ad hominem attack; > most people understand that to be offensive. I'm unwilling to adhere to your > pessimistic assumption: "there is no final answer to the meaning of the > Hebrew verbal system." This seems merely a rouse to allow yourself the > freedom to claim whatever notions you want about the system. If you merely > mean that there is no FINAL answer as in any other area of knowledge, then > what is not self-evident about that and why should it give us any pause in > our discussion: while a final answer may not be forthcoming, some answers are > better than others. I'm not at all sure that the "balanced scholarly > approach" is "to question the conclusions of other scholars" but rather to > examine the data. But then that was my point: that all this theoretical > posturing does not permit adequate attention to the data. > > And to repeat my point, I am not attacking people, even as you note that I've > called Andrason's approach naive, not Andrason himself (after all, don't we > regularly engage in calling actions evil without wanting to be so politically > incorrect as to call the people evil?) > > But to oblige you in your questions: > > 1) The definitions of the Hebrew verbal system have varied in the past 150 > years, though not greatly: there have traditionally been two main camps, > tense-prominent (e.g., Blake, Joüon) and aspect prominent (e.g., Rundgren, > Waltke and O'Connor). But then these definitions have become "refined" as > linguists have refined their understanding. The problem is that the BH > discussion lags behind the linguistic discussion. > > 2) The definitions I speak of are those linguists employ regularly and > without dispute among themselves (we're a long way from Comrie 1976!): see > the chapter on perfective/imperfective aspect on WALS > (http://wals.info/chapter/65). Linguists regularly employ these terms to > analyze a wide variety of language without getting stuck on defining what > aspect nor with special pleading that such and such language has aspect but > not in the same way as everyone else understands it. > > 3) These definitions arise from the past quarter-century and more of > inductive study of verbal systems and the recognition of the type of temporal > relations that human language may express. So I suppose to be pointed: they > are not a priori, but they are both inductively based and philosophically > based (going back to Aristotle, grammarians recognize that elements of "time" > are regularly expressed by verbs, and these are the definitions of the types > of temporal relationships that verbs regularly encode). > > 4 and 5) Yes, deictic center, event time, and reference time are features of > many analyses of verbal systems, arising from Reichenbach's (1947) ideas on > tense. They are widely agreed upon by linguists. > > 6) No, it is not silly to systematically apply these concepts to determine > the meaning of the Hebrew verbal system, but it does not follow that one's > systematic applications of these concepts is nevertheless silly, and that was > my point about your work. You neither systematically apply them nor is your > reasoning frequently sound. You engage in special pleading that other > considerations (esp. pragmatics) need to be taken into account, yet you have > not adequately critiqued your understanding of pragmatics: it becomes for you > a deus ex machina for any and all objections to your analysis. > > John > http://ancienthebrewgrammar.wordpress.com/ > > > > On Dec 13, 2012, at 3:04 AM, [email protected] wrote: > >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 8 >> Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 09:04:16 +0100 >> From: "Rolf" <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] More on verbs >> To: [email protected] >> Message-ID: <6504-50c98c00-11-443b0c80@82471991> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >> >> Dear James, >> >> I am not "dancing around definitions" and I am not offended?I did not >> discuss my emotions?but I try to keep my discussions on a scholarly >> non-emotional level. However, I found that what James Spinti called a "nice >> overview, contained language that questioned the abilities and scholarly >> knowledge of some who view Hebrew verbs differently from yourself, instead >> of addressing the linguistic questions. This is what I call "ad hominem >> arguments" For example, when you speak about Andrason's "lack of a clear >> grasp of the Hebrew data" and say that his approach is "naive," this is an >> attack on the scholar or person Andrason. And what is the premise for this >> evaluation of the scholar Andrason? That you KNOW; you have the answers. And >> the approaches of those who do not agree with what you KNOW, are naive and >> silly, and these scholars lack a knowledge of the Hebrew data. >> >> I would like to remind you that there is no final answer to the meaning of >> the Hebrew verbal system. Any study of Hebrew verbs, including your own >> study, is based on induction, deduction, and on several basic assumptions >> (axioms). A balanced scholarly approach, therefore, would be to question >> the conclusions of other scholars on the basis of linguistic arguments, and >> not calling their approaches or persons with names. >> >> I do not think that you have given adequate answers to my previous post, so >> I would like to comment on one point in each post. My focus now is on your >> words: " It is just silly to continue arguing over basic definitions that >> are widely agreed upon already, because it both wastes time and halts >> progress." I have some questions: >> >> 1) Is it true that the definitions of the Hebrew verbal system have >> differed greatly during the last 150 years (cf. the works McFall, Blake, >> Rundgren, Waltke-O'Connor, Jo?on_Muraoka, and others)? >> >> 2) What are the definitions used in the study of Hebrew verbs that are >> "widely agreed upon"? >> >> 3) Do these definitions have a particular basis, or are they just just a >> priori definitions, or definitions based on common sense? >> >> 4) Is it true that the concepts "deictic center," event time," and >> "reference time" are fundamental linguistic concepts that are used by >> linguists in their study of the verbs of different languages? >> >> 5) Is it true that the nature/meaning of the three concepts are widely >> agreed upon? >> >> If you give confirmatory answers to 4) and 5), my question is? >> >> 6) in which sense is it silly to systematically apply the mentioned three >> concepts to the Hebrew verbal system in order to try to find the meaning of >> each conjugation, instead of just accepting traditional definitions a priori? >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> Rolf Furuli >> Stavern >> Norway >
_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
