Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Vincent DeCaen <decaen AT chass.utoronto.ca>]

> From: "Matthew Anstey" <manstey AT portal.ca>
> To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
> Subject: RE: b-hebrew digest: December 03, 1998

> Thanks for your comments about learning BH. They have been most helpful. I
> am still interested in that issue, but I have thought of another one that
> bothers me a lot as well.
[big snip]

> 3) I can understand leaving out Late BH, but can we safely omit poetry?

short answer, IMHO: nope! there is a false dichotomy there. it arises
mostly from the dominence of discourse types who can't get their
generalizations to work elsewhere. not enough wayyiqtols, I guess.
Niccacci for example just stipulates that there are two grammars. <sigh>

> 4)    i) why do scholars usually omit a particular verb form? (eg Goldfajn
> omits qotel; both omit qetol, qatol etc). This seems to be like describing
> English without reference to the participle.

BINGO! imagine describing english without a participle! kind of like
Ewald in the 1800s, and everyone else more or less since. if you did
admit the participle you'd have two problems. (1) the contrast between
"I write" and "I'm writing" would be comparable to yiqtol vs qotel,
but yiqtol... well you can see the problem. (2) then you might have to
admit constructions like haya qotel, and then where would it end? ;-)

>       ii) why only verbs? surely non-verb forms signify both tense and/or 
> aspect.

of course! an infinitive, usually "tenseless". but the whole language
is tenseless: then what do you do? ignore the infinitives of course!

> 5) why do these analyses tend to group all yiqtols/qatals/etc together with
> no reference to verb stem. If the binyamin denote different types of action
> surely they must be a variable in aspect? Instead of asking, "what does qtl
> do?" should we say "what does qal qtl do? what does niphal qtl do?" etc.
> With 7 stems and 9 (or more) forms, that's 63 questions instead of 9
> questions!

what about statives and interaction with qatal/yiqtol? it's endless!!
 
> I imagine others would point out problems with other steps as well, but
> these are the ones I think of when I read around. Is perhaps the problem is
> that people are trying to solve the enigma of the _verbal_ system, rather
> than the _BH_ system? That is, are we asking the wrong question when we say,
> "Is the hebrew verb system tense or aspect?" We should instead say, "Is BH
> tense or aspect?" So I was wondering if someone could suggest a better
> method if they have one and/or theoretical considerations about this. It
> seems we won't even get off the ground without a proper method, as in all
> study.

IMHO you need to read up what professionals say about semantics. there
are piles of great material out there, just waiting for you. e.g.,
just saw in the bookstore another semantics intro, de Swart
"Introduction to Natural Language Semantics" 1998. once you get a
framework, a vocabulary and a method, then you can be your own guide.
 
> Ever inquisitive,
don't give up. you're asking **all** the right questions. don't take
mumbojumbo for an answer. good luck.

cheers 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Vincent DeCaen, Ph.D.  <decaen AT chass.utoronto.ca>

Hebrew Syntax Encoding Initiative
http://www.chass.utoronto.ca:8080/~decaen/hsei/intro.html
c/o Deparment of Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations
4 Bancroft Ave., 2d floor, University of Toronto, Toronto ON, M5S 1A1
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

...the idea of a perfect language risks becoming nothing more than a
waste bin for prejudices which have not survived confrontation with
linguistic reality.
  --Mark Sainsbury, "Russell", 1979: p15