Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Jonathan Robie <jonathan AT texcel.no>]

At 06:00 PM 1/6/99 +0200, Rolf Furuli wrote:
>Jonathan Robie wrote:
>>
>>Please, no personal attacks!
 
>Dear Jonathan,

[SNIP!] 

>But it appears to me that the writer of that post (he has
>contributed with many excellent posts on b-hebrew), in this case
>criticizes something of which he has no knowledge.

I'm not going to take sides on who knows what.

*** BUT ***
  
Even if what you say is true, when someone criticizes something of which he
has no knowledge, that person deserves respect. The appropriate response is
to provide information to educate that person, not to dismiss him out of hand.

>Those using scientific methods to test a hypothesis that Greek aorist (or
>Hebrew wayyiqtol) is not past tense are wasting their time, BECAUSE AORIST
>*IS* PAST TENSE!

Obviously, this quote is a "proof by capitalization", BECAUSE MY ASSERTION
IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE! This isn't a very enlightening approach, but at least
it isn't a personal attack. If the aorist is past tense, then good
scientific methods will show it, but it would be legitimate to ask why this
person believes that the Aorist is past tense. Unfortunately, that might
tend to distract from the discussion of Hebrew, so it might be better to
ask for proof that the wayyiqtol is past tense, discuss what kinds of proof
would be appropriate to determine this, search for examples that either
prove or disprove the hypothesis, etc.

Unfortunately, I don't know anything about Hebrew, but those using
scientific methods to test the above hypothesis have come to three
different conclusions for the Greek Aorist:

1. The Aorist grammaticalizes inherent past time reference
2. The Aorist grammaticalizes implied past time reference
3. The Aorist grammaticalizes aspect only, and not past time reference

I gather that there are also differences of opinion on the Hebrew tenses.
The experts differ. So will participants on this list. The experts have
studied different bodies of evidence. So have the participants on this list.

>It is evident that the writer has not read Olsen's thesis...

Then educate him! I don't think that people have to read everything you've
read in order to be treated with respect. You're perfectly free to present
material on the list that the participants have not already read.

(Editorial note: I'm a big fan of Olsen. She has published her thesis as a
book, and these kinds of books tend to stay in print for a limited time, so
if you want a copy, you may want to buy it quickly. But it's about aspect
in many languages, and none of the examples are for Hebrew.)

>I do not see that Ken's post is an ad
>hominem attack more than the other post is an attack on me, and I do not
>feel that.

May I suggest that the best response to an ad hominum attack is one that is
*not* an ad hominum attack, rather than one that is no less an ad hominum
attack than the original?

>What Ken called for, as I understand him, was scientific
>arguments to meet scientific arguments, and this is in my view very fine.

There are respectful ways to ask for more information, eg:

"Why do you say that wayyiqtol is past tense? How do you define past tense?
What methods do you use to determine whether a form grammaticalizes past
tense? Are you following the approach of any particular book?"

>>>Her excellent methods have the advantage that they
>>>are testable, and I follow a similar method in my study of Hebrew verbs.

(Side comment: I'd be very interested in a copy of that study)

>>by definition, or self-evidently, the greek aorist is PERFECTIVE.

Hmmmm.... a proof by definition, or is that a proof by self-evidence?
Really, I don't find this kind of assertion very enlightening. But again,
at least it isn't a personal attack.

Jonathan
 
jonathan AT texcel.no
Texcel Research
http://www.texcel.no