Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Bryan Rocine" <596547 AT ican.net>]

----------
> From: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
> To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
> Subject: Re: 1 Samuel 1, Rolf
> Date: Thursday, November 26, 1998 3:32 PM
> Dear Bryan,
> 

> that a situation is both "punctual" and "habitual". But I see two other
> important problems: 1) The use of discourse analysis in a
> deductive-nomologic way, i.e. the same way as the laws of nature are used
> in explanations in the natural sciences, and 2) the definition of aspect
in

so what are the "laws" that the discourse analyst begins with, those from
which he deduces a language system?  are they as reliable as gravity? 
inertia?  well, i imagine not, but they're still pretty reliable, reliable
enough.  the laws are not expressed so clearly as some natural laws, but
they are still pretty reliable.

Law:  language is a tool which people use to get certain things done. 
e.g., what people,
in what time, in what culture do not tell stories to one another, explain
things to one another, exhort one another, talk "up" to superiors and
"down" to inferiors, do not use language differently in an emergency than
when they are at the solemn dedication of a monument?  if we knew nothing
about BH, we could go to the text hoping to locate distinct contexts in
which writers/speakers do these universally human things.  we would see if
we could identify a distribution of linguistic constructions that
demonstrate a high correlation with these behavioral goals.  in a sense
we're looking for what linguistic means writers/speakers use to accomplish
different human ends.  if you were dropped down to live in the middle of a
people who speak a language unknown to you, it is exactly how you would
best proceed, not only to learn the language, but to survive.  for BH, the
question is, how far can we push this discourse analytical approach?  how
fine-grained can we make this description of human communication and how
fine-grained can our observations be of the correlations between particular
linguistic behavior and particular human ends until the reliability breaks
down?

the model a researcher uses depends on what he's looking for, no?  maybe
discourse analysis cannot study verbal semantics independently.  it is, on
the other hand,  very helpful for understanding the text, for reading, for
exegesis, and, i think, for teaching/learning BH.  in short, d. a. will
probably be of greater practical value to more people than the more
abstract and philosophical approaches we aspectniks enjoy.   ;-)  

i accept the inadequacy of d. a. as a model for researching verbal
semantics.  it is merely an essential component of the study of verbal
semantics.  but, shouldn't the models and the findings of several models
complement one another if the models are reliable and if the findings
arrived at by the models are accurate?  if my d. a. model is good and
Vince's generative model is good, and your explanation is good, our
findings should complement and enhance each other, act as controls for each
other.

i think it was this summer that i suggested that the d. a. model in some
ways does not agree with traditional descriptions of verbal aspect in BH. 
i'm merely asking why the models do not complement one another. 
something's awry, and the question needs to be asked.  and, btw, the
discourse model agrees quite well with some of your conclusions, Rolf,
about the verbal semantics of BH which are not very traditional.  isn't
that good for you?  and good for the d. a. model?  

well, you know me...always take advantage of a chance to spout on d. a. 
;-)

Shalom,
Bryan

B. M. Rocine
Associate Pastor
Living Word Church
6101 Court St. Rd.
Syracuse, NY 13208

315-437-6744(w)
315-479-8267(h)