Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] How rule-bound is Hebrew really?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Daniel Lundsgaard Skovenborg <waldeinburg AT yahoo.com>
  • To: Chavoux Luyt <chavoux AT gmail.com>
  • Cc: "b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] How rule-bound is Hebrew really?
  • Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 00:55:02 -0800 (PST)

[snip]
> My question is if we are not over-analysing the grammar and especially the
> pointing of the tanach?
[snip]
> There was a long discussion on the meaning of katal, yiktol, wekatal and
> wayiktol in terms of being indicators of tense, aspect or something else.
> Did the ancient Hebrews really think in those linguistic terms? In
> Afrikaans it is quite common to relate past events using the present tense
> and it is perfectly understandable as having occurred in the past. Is there
> any reason that the Hebrews did not do something similar? And are we not
> making a mistake to use "counter-examples" to conclude that a certain
> "grammatical rule" cannot be true? I cannot conclude from the
> occasional
> use of present tense (usually in a narrative) in Afrikaans for past events
> that it is not really the present tense form of the verb. Are we not
> confusing ourselves by making the Hebrew Grammar more difficult than it
> need to be and are many pronunciations and grammatical "oddities" not
> simply indications of how biblical Hebrew was spoken at a specific time and
> place? The most important thing is surely to ensure that we understand it
> as correctly as possible? Before we draw all kinds of grammatical
> conclusions from those occurrences of "curious" language usage we
> occasionally encounter.
>
> Best Regards
> Chavoux Luyt

As I see it, it's a matter of having a proper linguistic framework.
Surely, we want to understand BH as correctly as possible. Yet, the moment we
talk about *how* we understand BH we enter the field of metalanguage where we
apply labels like "tense" and "aspect", draw weird diagrams and stuff to
communicate with each other how we understand the language. Sometimes we make
mistakes and apply metalanguage that describes meaning that isn't there –
then, but only then, it is over-analysing.
You observation regarding Afrikaans is perfectly valid (Danish, English, and,
dare I say it, Koiné Greek does the same), but I don't think it shows that
linguistic discussion misses the point. What it does show, in my opinion, is
that our linguistic framework needs to describe language in terms of the
interplay of syntax, semantics and pragmatics; it cannot be limited to "form
X carries the meaning of Y".
When you speak you have some meaning in a context you want to communicate and
you use language to achieve this. For example, try to ask yourself regarding
you mother tounge (Afrikaans, I presume): When you communicate about past
events, is past or present tense the default choice? What effect does it have
when you choose one instead of another? You will (hopefully:-)) find that it
does make some kind of difference to the communication instead of just being
some grammatical oddity. It's not easy to answer these questions regarding
BH, because we can only try to induce the answers from the text.

Regards
Daniel Lundsgaard Skovenborg





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page