1 SHAMASH.ORG /usr/www/wwwhc/listserv/archives/heblang May 2000
2 61 29_RE: heh sound shift: DH --> H11_Cohen, Izzy18_Izzy_Cohen@bmc.com31_Sun, 14 May 2000 00:09:54 -0500574_ISO-8859-1 on-list<br><br>Monica --<br><br>I apologize for the confusion. The 3 lines you quoted [Then Izzy wrote in response] were sent on-list in response to the posting by Ruthanna Barnett: >> From: RUTHANNA BARNETT [mailto:r.barnett@lancaster.ac.uk] Sent: Friday, 12 May 2000 Subject: more definite article<br><br>... Do we know of (and/or have evidence for) the existence of an earlier form of the definite article, in Hebrew, (or earlier Semitic), of a free form definite article? This form would then have been grammaticalized to the prefix ha-. << end of quote [...]
64 33 29_RE: heh sound shift: DH --> H16_RUTHANNA BARNETT25_r.barnett@lancaster.ac.uk37_Sun, 14 May 2000 11:03:20 +0100 (BST)588_us-ascii Sorry to have caused confusion about the heh issue - but i still don't really have an answer to my question. Izzy - the connection you 'postulate' is an interesting one, and although it may provide possible evidence for the connection between the Hebrew prefix article, and the 'germanic' definite article, it does not shed any light on the form of the Hebrew article - i.e. whether it originated from a non-bound form, and what that form was. In my original posting, i mentioned that i remembered seeing on the list recently something about 'hal' as a common Semitic *free [...]
98 31 20_Re: Definite article14_Tsuguya Sasaki15_tsuguya@gol.com31_Sun, 14 May 2000 19:29:29 +0900424_iso-8859-1 When we discussed about the origin of the definite article in Hebrew some time ago on this list, I explained it briefly. So I don't want to repeat what I wrote then.<br><br>The bottom line is that the supposition that the bound form _ha-_ developed from the free form _*hal_ in analogy of Arabic was given up long time ago by most Semitists. So the whole discussion of grammaticalization is irrelevant here. [...]
130 24 39_grammaticalization and definite article16_RUTHANNA BARNETT25_r.barnett@lancaster.ac.uk37_Sun, 14 May 2000 13:18:40 +0100 (BST)602_us-ascii Thanks to Izzy for forwarding me the message i had lost, and was referring to. One last question on this, then i promise to leave you all alone! The definite article originating from an earlier demonstrative fits with grammaticalization processes attested in many languages (Greenberg 1978), but the 'normal' process is demonstrative to free form article, to bound article. Is this accepted by 'Semitic linguists' as being the process in Hebrew (whether we know what that form was or might have been, or not), or was there a 'jump' straight to a bound form? thanks to all again, Ruthanna [...]
155 24 43_Re: grammaticalization and definite article14_Tsuguya Sasaki15_tsuguya@gol.com31_Sun, 14 May 2000 22:06:28 +0900401_iso-8859-1 According to the accepted definition of grammaticalization as the process where a *content word* assumes the grammatical characteristics of a *function word*, I wonder if the Hebrew _ha-_, which is of the demonstrutive origin hence a function word and came to assume another grammatical characteristic *still* as a function word, can be considered as an example of grammaticalization. [...]
180 44 43_Re: grammaticalization and definite article16_RUTHANNA BARNETT25_r.barnett@lancaster.ac.uk37_Sun, 14 May 2000 15:02:50 +0100 (BST)501_us-ascii Grammaticalization may be definited as you present it, i.e. where a morpheme moves from lexical to grammatical status, but a more inclusive definition, and considered the "classical definition" (at least by Heine, Claudi and Hunnemeyer (1991) and me!) is from Kurylowicz (1965):<br><br>"grammaticalization "consists in the increase of the range of a morpheme advancing from a lexical to a grammatical or from a less grammatical to a more grammatical status" (Kurylowicz [1965] 1975:62). [...]
225 31 22_Re: grammaticalization14_Tsuguya Sasaki15_tsuguya@gol.com31_Mon, 15 May 2000 00:03:52 +0900396_iso-8859-1 I apologize to all those subscribers of this list who are not interested in the theoretical discussion of grammaticalization.<br><br>The less inclusive definition of grammaticalization I presented is actually not mine but based on Hopper & Traugott (1993). Unfortunately, I have neither Heine, Claudi & Hunnemeyer (1991) nor Kurylowicz (1965) handy, so I cannot consult them now. [...]
257 44 22_Re: grammaticalization16_RUTHANNA BARNETT25_r.barnett@lancaster.ac.uk37_Sun, 14 May 2000 17:11:06 +0100 (BST)414_us-ascii My reading of Hopper and Traugott backs up the inclusive definition that i gave (I do have it to hand if you do too, check out p2, p.16 ). I am quite new to the area of grammaticalization, but have been quite excited by it so far, espeically because it is an area that seems to go beyond the clearcut boundaries of categorizations and the 'dichotomies' those categorizations used to entail. Ruthanna [...]
302 47 22_Re: grammaticalization14_Tsuguya Sasaki15_tsuguya@gol.com31_Mon, 15 May 2000 01:39:48 +0900483_iso-8859-1 Maybe Ruthanna Barnet is right in her inclusive definition of grammaticalization as the dichotomy between content words and function words is not that of black and white but rather that of a scale where the boundary is rather blurred as she said.<br><br>Thank you for enlightening me and kindling an interest in this field. I'll probably reread Hopper & Traugott (1993) and read for the first time Traugott & Heine (1991), which still remains unread in my bookshelf. [...]