Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: Different verb forms - same meaning?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Paul Zellmer <zellmer AT cag.pworld.net.ph>
  • To: list b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Different verb forms - same meaning?
  • Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 20:53:57 +0800


> > 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








Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page