Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: Re[2]: Poetry (was [6]: ex 26 + 36.8ff, (36.29))

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Dave Washburn" <dwashbur AT nyx.net>
  • To: b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re: Re[2]: Poetry (was [6]: ex 26 + 36.8ff, (36.29))
  • Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 00:21:19 -0700


>
> I don't think these are examples of "idiolect", which is, I think, the
> odd speech of just one person. More likely this is a particular
> dialect of English used by teenagers within their sub-culture, either
> in your own area or more widely.

Yes, I knew "idiolect" was not the best term, but I couldn't think of
a better one at the time.

> You wrote: "These statements are not well-formed according to English
> grammar". Well, indeed, according to the type of grammar we learned
> from old-fashioned books based on Latin. On the other hand, such
> statements are perfectly normal and correct, and therefore
> "grammatical", within the dialect in which they occur.

I'm not talking about the type of grammar we learned from old-
fashioned books, I'm talking about the type of grammar that is
intuitive to the bulk of English speakers. The majority of a society
that uses a particular language may comprehend such a sub-
dialect without considering it grammatically "correct" (a term I
prefer to avoid, and use "well-formed" instead). The fact is that
outside her little circle, these types of phrases are considered
malformed in some way, and unless we adopt Humpty-Dumpty's
criterion for well-formedness and assume that anything goes and
there's no such thing as "well-formed" or "malformed," we have to
have some basis to go on. Two things suggest to me that the
information we glean from the "bigger picture" is the basis: 1)
When a speaker or writer uses the grammatical patterns accepted
by the bulk of the society using the language, the vast majority of
hearers or readers don't need to shift their thinking into a sub-
dialect to comprehend it; rather, their understanding comes
perfectly naturally and the recognize it as the "natural" formation
within their language. 2) The overwhelming majority of kids who
currently use this sub-dialect will ultimately "grow out of it." That
is, at some point of maturity they will cease using it and adopt a
dialect closer to that used by the majority of the society which
uses that language. What these factors tell me is that this sub-
dialect is an aberration, and should not be used as a basis for
determining what is well-formed and what is not.

> > To get back to Hebrew, this means that we cannot find "bad
grammar" in > the Hebrew Bible (except perhaps where the text is
corrupted, or > conceivably where foreigners are speaking (e.g. 2
Kings 18:19-35)), > but rather "different grammar", corresponding
either to a different > dialect (regional, sub-cultural etc) or to a
different genre. > > Peter Kirk > > >

What this tells me is that we have no basis at all to determine what
may or may not be well-formed. That bothers me more than a little
bit...


Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
A Bible that's falling apart means a life that isn't.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page