FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2039809110> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2039809110 endingPage "271" @default.
• W2039809110 startingPage "269" @default.
• W2039809110 abstract "Hebrew Studies 40 (1999) 269 Reviews grams that serve as excellent visual aids. The work is written in a highly technical language that assumes familiarity with the terminology. shorthand , and conceptual framework of Generative Grammar. and this limits its accessibility and appeal to a wide readership. The inclusion of a glossary andlor a brief overview of this method of linguistic study would help address this problem. The book's title is somewhat inaccurate since it does not offer a truly comparative study of Hebrew and Arabic syntax. It is principally an analysis of Hebrew which makes reference to other languages to explicate and illustrate Shlonsky's ideas on Hebrew. While Arabic is cited more frequently than any other language besides Hebrew. there are lengthy sections of the book in which it never figures in the discussion. For example. there is not a single reference to Arabic in the thirty-page chapter treating subject-verb inversion. A further problem concerns the inconsistent manner in which Shlonsky appeals to the Arabic evidence. Throughout the book, he argues his case by referring to several different forms of the language . including Standard Arabic and the dialects from Palestine. Southern Palestine. Morocco, and Egypt. Each of these is a unique linguistic system that is distinct from the others but Shlonsky does not pay sufficient attention to the differences among them. This method hinders the purported comparative focus of his work since the reader is not sure which Arabic is meant to be the primary point of comparison. Consistent reliance upon one form of the language would have been a more beneficial approach to adopt. Such relatively minor problems do not significantly detract from the many strengths of this volume and the important contribution it makes. Shlonsky's book is required reading for anyone interested in serious study of Hebrew and will be a major work in the field. John Kaltner Rhodes College Memphis, TN 38112 kaltner@rhodes.edu THE SEMANTICS OF ASPECT AND MODALITY: EVIDENCE FROM ENGLISH AND BIBLICAL HEBREW. By Galia Hatav. Studies in Language Companion Series 34. Pp. x + 224. Philadelphia. PA: John Benjamins, 1997. Cloth, $85.00. Originally a dissertation at Tel-Aviv University. this work aims to provide a general (semantic) theory for temporality...but it also systemati- Hebrew Studies 40 (l999) 270 Reviews cally examines the verb system in Biblical-Hebrew...which lacks tenses, as will be demonstrated, and thus enables us to see the nature of aspect and modality more clearly (p. I). The author's theoretical assumption is that TAM, i.e., the Tense-Aspect-Modal system in language, should be defmed within truth conditional semantics, in terms of temporality, rather than within a pragmatic approach which deals with it in terms of perspective, attitude, and the like (although pragmatics is not ignored altogether, p. 195). Moreover, she seeks to analyze the data within the framework of a threefold distinction. Here she builds on the work of Hans Reichenbach, who argued that the contrast between the time of speech (S-time) and the time in which the event actually took place (E-time) is not sufficient to account for verbal uses. A third category is needed, namely, the time of reference (R-time), a somewhat fuzzy concept that Hatav defmes as a time unit that contains (or is contained in, or is ordered with) the E-time (pp. 3-5). In the introductory chapter the author, after explaining these and other assumptions, surveys previous attempts to account for the verbal system of biblical Hebrew; unfortunately, she seems unaware of Bruce K. Waltke and M. O'Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, which gives considerable attention to verbal aspect She further informs us that she examined sixty-two chapters taken from the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets (excluding poetic material, since poetry often violates otherwise valid linguistic norms, p. 24) and gives us some details regarding her method. Following the lead of discourse-analysis scholars, such as R. Longacre, she argues that the biblical Hebrew system organizes the text into sequential and non-sequential material, but that in addition to sequentiality, three other temporal parameters are needed. These four parameters are individually considered in the following chapters. Chapter 2, accordingly, deals..." @default.
• W2039809110 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2039809110 creator A5088559095 @default.
• W2039809110 date "1999-01-01" @default.
• W2039809110 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W2039809110 title "<i>The Semantics of Aspect and Modality: Evidence from English and Biblical Hebrew</i> (review)" @default.
• W2039809110 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/hbr.1999.0029" @default.
• W2039809110 hasPublicationYear "1999" @default.
• W2039809110 type Work @default.
• W2039809110 sameAs 2039809110 @default.
• W2039809110 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2039809110 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2039809110 hasAuthorship W2039809110A5088559095 @default.
• W2039809110 hasConcept C132165367 @default.
• W2039809110 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2039809110 hasConcept C166957645 @default.
• W2039809110 hasConcept C194105502 @default.
• W2039809110 hasConcept C26022165 @default.
• W2039809110 hasConcept C2780031656 @default.
• W2039809110 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2039809110 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W2039809110 hasConcept C528670733 @default.
• W2039809110 hasConcept C547195049 @default.
• W2039809110 hasConcept C60048249 @default.
• W2039809110 hasConcept C65264089 @default.
• W2039809110 hasConcept C91304198 @default.
• W2039809110 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W2039809110 hasConcept C96455323 @default.
• W2039809110 hasConceptScore W2039809110C132165367 @default.
• W2039809110 hasConceptScore W2039809110C138885662 @default.
• W2039809110 hasConceptScore W2039809110C166957645 @default.
• W2039809110 hasConceptScore W2039809110C194105502 @default.
• W2039809110 hasConceptScore W2039809110C26022165 @default.
• W2039809110 hasConceptScore W2039809110C2780031656 @default.
• W2039809110 hasConceptScore W2039809110C41008148 @default.
• W2039809110 hasConceptScore W2039809110C41895202 @default.
• W2039809110 hasConceptScore W2039809110C528670733 @default.
• W2039809110 hasConceptScore W2039809110C547195049 @default.
• W2039809110 hasConceptScore W2039809110C60048249 @default.
• W2039809110 hasConceptScore W2039809110C65264089 @default.
• W2039809110 hasConceptScore W2039809110C91304198 @default.
• W2039809110 hasConceptScore W2039809110C95457728 @default.
• W2039809110 hasConceptScore W2039809110C96455323 @default.
• W2039809110 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2039809110 hasLocation W20398091101 @default.
• W2039809110 hasOpenAccess W2039809110 @default.
• W2039809110 hasPrimaryLocation W20398091101 @default.
• W2039809110 hasRelatedWork W1590985466 @default.
• W2039809110 hasRelatedWork W1749934578 @default.
• W2039809110 hasRelatedWork W2015329189 @default.
• W2039809110 hasRelatedWork W2030968835 @default.
• W2039809110 hasRelatedWork W2739477703 @default.
• W2039809110 hasRelatedWork W2804834136 @default.
• W2039809110 hasRelatedWork W4289672661 @default.
• W2039809110 hasRelatedWork W4299543852 @default.
• W2039809110 hasRelatedWork W628703715 @default.
• W2039809110 hasRelatedWork W834075199 @default.
• W2039809110 hasVolume "40" @default.
• W2039809110 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2039809110 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2039809110 magId "2039809110" @default.
• W2039809110 workType "article" @default.