Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Paul Zellmer <zellmer AT cag.pworld.net.ph>]

> > Please realize that this is not the approach that I use with Ibanag, the 
> > language
> > *into which* I am translating.  There I very much have to start from 
> > bottom up,
> > finding the correct words, the correct clause level forms, and the 
> > correct discourse
> > features to result in the closest reconstruction that I can manage to the 
> > original
> > text that I analyzed.
>
> So why couldn't you use this approach for Hebrew?  That's the part
> I'm not understanding so far.

Dave,

It's fairly simple.  When I analyzed an electrical circuit, there was no way 
that I could
determine with any certainty why the designer selected a certain transistor 
over another
that has similar characteristics.  Having designed some circuits, I realize 
that sometimes
these decisions are based on parts availability, sometimes on familiarity 
with the part's
characteristics, sometimes because it happened to be the first one tried that 
did the job.
When I looked at some software routines, I could not see what iterations the 
designer went
through before he was satisfied with the results.  I have found that the 
starting point, the
initial program, often determines the shape of the final program, even if it 
is not the most
efficient way of arriving at the desired effect.  There just simply is no 
reliable way to
get into the mind of the original Hebrew writers to know for sure what they 
rejected and
why.  So you work with the material at hand.  Oh, perhaps you can see the 
skill of the
writer from the elegance of the forms used.  But that's a long way from 
understanding the
reasons for the decisions in "non-elegant" passages.

I have enjoyed watching the play on words and sounds found in the poetic 
forms in the first
part of Isaiah.  But could I really make a point if *I* see a place where a 
writer could
have used wordplay and didn't?  *Perhaps* he consciously decided not to make 
a play on
words.  But then again, *perhaps* he just didn't notice the option.

So, in short, I do not see the benefit of the "skyscraper" approach because 
there are just
too many unknowns which effect the reliability of the conclusions.  As you 
start building,
errors are as likely to accumulate as they are to cancel each other out.  So 
if you start
with an already large possibility for error because of your assumptions, your 
conclusions
should acknowledge an even larger uncertainty of exactness.

On the other hand, when I am generating the text, I *do* know what decisions 
I am making
consciously.  I also realize that I have limitations in the tools *I* know 
how to use, that
I have certain styles with which I feel comfortable, and that my frame of 
mind and
concentration level both impact the quality of the product.  I can and do use 
the
"skyscraper" approach here.

HTH,

Paul

--
Paul and Dee Zellmer, Jimmy Guingab, Geoffrey Beltran
Ibanag Translation Project
Cabagan, Philippines

zellmer AT faith.edu.ph