Biblical Hebrew Forum

["S. R. Schrader" <schrader AT ncsi.net>]

unsuscribe me from the b-hebrew list
S.R. Schrader
----------
>From: "Biblical Hebrew digest" <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
>To: "b-hebrew digest recipients" <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
>Subject: b-hebrew digest: February 15, 1999
>Date: Tue, Feb 16, 1999, 5:00 AM
>

>Biblical Hebrew Digest for Monday, February 15, 1999.
>
>1. Re: Historiography and the Scriptures of Israel
>2. (racist?) BH, agendas and tenselessness?
>3. Re: conative
>4. Re: wayyiqtol test
>5. Re: Historiography and the Scriptures of Israel
>6. Re[2]: wayyiqtol test
>7. Re: Concord
>8. BH, tenselessness, reply to smith
>9. language families, imperialism, racism, etc.
>10. euro-imperialism, BH, tenselessness
>11. BH, tenseless, reply to smith II
>12. Re: BH, agendas and tenselessness?
>13. Re: BH, agendas and tenselessness?
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Subject: Re: Historiography and the Scriptures of Israel
>From: Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>
>Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 07:39:52 +0100
>X-Message-Number: 1
>
>Dear Ken,
>
>I don't think there is much point in doing the sort of compartmentalizing
>that seems to be implied in your post. My job is to do history. I can't see
>what you really want to do by divorcing the documents from any possible
>contextualisation of them. You date the writing of texts by comparing them
>with what is known of the era they relate to. You date manuscripts by other
>criteria. Dating manuscripts will only ever tell you when they were copied,
>unless you can find a way to show that a manuscript is an autograph. The
>problem them comes to how you relate the manuscript to the time it refers
>to. How do you date the Wadi ed-Daliyeh manuscripts? How do you date the
>Elephantine papyri? It is these that reflect history. They are autographs.
>
>You may have wanted to deal with one particular thing. I commented on that
>as an effort that had little purpose. Your subject line mentioned
>historiography. All I found was Scriptures of Israel. I talked about the
>interrelationship between archaeological and epigraphic sources on the one
>hand and literary sources on the other. It is through a strict comparison
>between them that we can ascertain the veracity of a literary source for
>history.
>
>Now read this: you continue to *misrepresent* my views and position by
>stating things like this:
>
>>Since
>>you assgined virually all the Scri[ptures of Israel to the 2nd cenruy
>>BC, I'd like to know your crieria for doing so.
>
>The following is what I said in my previous post and despite it you wrote
>the above. Why?
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>I have asserted that we don't know when most of the OT/HB books were
>written (though I have argued a late date for a few specific examples).
>There is also very little in the archaeological and epigraphic remains to
>lend credibility to them as usable witnesses. As credibility seems
>unavailable to them, they have little place in historical analyses. The
>best we can do is to show that most of the places mentioned existed and
>there were people called Omri, Hezekiah and Sanballat attested to in the
>epigraphic sources. The conflict between the archaeological record and the
>biblical accounts (regarding, for example, the ) doesn't help their case
>for credibility.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Did you see any sign of my assigning "virually all the Scriptures of Israel
>to the 2nd century BC"? Naturally not. So what were you thinking?
>
>
>Ian
>
>
>At 15.48 14/02/99 -0800, Ken Litwak wrote:
>>Ian, your reply to me quoted something I didn't write and hadnothing
>>to do with the specific issue I am addressing.  I will get to
>>archaeological and epigraphic data, but that is not the topic I raised. 
>>Please deal with the topic instead of going to some other topic, if you
>>wish to discuss it.  All the archeaological evidence in the world does
>>not say anything about what should be criteria for dating texts.  Let us
>>focus on just ONE thing at a time please.  Do you have any suggestiojns
>>for criteria for establishing the likely dates of compositions oa any
>>texts?  No evidence that you cited in your post has anything to do with
>>establishing when Aristotle's Rhetorica or Thucydides War was written. 
>>I'd like to deal with this one issue of dating texts without going off
>>in other directins and not really discussing the issue at hand.  Since
>>you assgined virually all the Scri[ptures of Israel to the 2nd cenruy
>>BC, I'd like to know your crieria for doing so.  I've suggesed that
>>basing it on MSS dates is not valid in light of other texts.  Let's deal
>>with tha specific issue.  
>>
>>
>>Ken Litwak
>>
>>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Subject: (racist?) BH, agendas and tenselessness?
>From: Andrew C Smith <a.c.smith AT juno.com>
>Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 04:36:57 EST
>X-Message-Number: 2
>
>
>>i continue my studies on that fateful year of 1826 when ewald came up
>>with his idea of the verbal system based on his study of sanskrit and
>>comparative indoeuropean studies. in part i have argued that this view
>>was motivated by 19th cent racism, a view not original with me.
>
>We had this discussion before: I can't believe that the assertion that
>the indo-european Ursprache was tenseless (or the assertion that the
>proto-Semitic Ursprache was tenseless) is motivated by racism, because it
>cuts equally against the Europeans. The assertion says that ALL languages
>started that way (incl. Germanic and therefore English).
>
>The theological agenda is perhaps a more likely motive; an un-creative
>Christian linguist would have strong motive to say that the verb system
>was tenseless. A more creative Christian apologist could avoid this
>awkward move and retain his beliefs by a different account, e.g.,
>prophets often spoke in a past tense/time because they were report a
>message given to them in the past, i.e., "in my vision, the city was
>desolate" or "the Lord said that the people were taken captive". However,
>sometimes even a Jewish interpreter will need to use that same move,
>because it is not only the Christians who need to read certain texts this
>way.
>
>- A.C. Smith
>
>
>
>
>___________________________________________________________________
>You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
>Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
>or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Subject: Re: conative
>From: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
>Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 13:56:32 +0200
>X-Message-Number: 3
>
>Randall Buth wrote:
>
>
>>rolf wrote:
>>> Ex 8:14 is conative because the priests *tried to* bring forth gnats
>>...
>>> none of your examples above are conative.
>>
>>we probably should have started with your own examples:
>>
>>ex 8.14: the priests actually did their magic acts and completed all their
>>activities. that is one reason why the Greek translator was happy with the
>>aorist. they acted (vayya`asu), they executed their magic.
>>this is not a true conative.
>>
>>thus, ibn ezra:  vayya`asu xen = "they struck the dust of the ground".
>>[aramaic targum translated with suffix tense, of course.]
>>
>>jer 37.12 is not conative but inceptive.
>>jeremiah actually started out on his journey. which is why the LXX used
>>aorist. this is common in biblical hebrew narrative with movement verbs.
>>see below for NT aorist examples.
>>
>>[by the way, your arabic illustration qaatala is a suffix tense(!), though
>>we would both argue 'lexicalization' if getting technical, no? 'he
>>fought/=tried to kill' and irrelevant to aspect questions.]
>>
>>on my examples:
>>2sam 4.8 "he tried to (suffix tense) kill him" ... (but didn't)  is as
>>failed an attempt as one gets. of course, that lexicalizes the concept
>>'tried to'.
>>
>>since definition problems seem to arise,
>>please send
>>ten examples of prefix tense verbs that are conative
>>(not vayyiqtol, because of the 'inceptive aorist')
>>and i'll give you ten examples of veqatal conative.
>>
>>i'll accept five.
>>
>>meanwhile, the NT:
>>
>>john 4.3 'and they went away to galilee'
>>aorist .
>>but they didn't get there just then, since they were delayed in samaria.
>>this is the idiom that is occurs in the hebrew bible and explains jer
>>37.12.
>>matt 14.26 'jesus came (aorist) to them', but he didn't actually arrive
>>then. peter did some footwork out towards jesus' direction first. then they
>>went to the boat.
>>luke 15.18,20 'i will go to my father . . . he went to his father (aorist).
>>(but his father saw him before he arrived and ran to him first)
>>luk 9.56-7 and they went (aorist) to a different village. and while on the
>>way someone said ...
>>
>>do you like the texts with the aorists at luke 9.49? 'they (tried to)
>>prevent(ed) him...'
>>or H11.4, 'by faith Abraham offered [perfect] isaak
>
>
>>
>Dear Randall.
>
>
>There may of course be differences in interpretation regarding conative
>situations when they are grammatically signalled instead of being lexically
>signalled by the use of the word "try to". That is the reason why
>imperfective verbs always are used - to make the signal as clear as
>possible.
>
>
>Conative examples with yiqtol:
>
>
>Deut 13:6 "try to persuade you" or "entice you"  The SWT was clearly not
>successful.
>Job 21:34 "How then do you try to comfort me in vanity?" They did not
>comfort Job.
>Psalm 139:18 "If I should try to count them"
>proverbs 1:10 "If sinners try to deceive you"
>Song of songs 2:7 (3:5; 8:4) "Do not try to try to awaken or arouse love
>until it pleases."
>
>One conative example with wayyiqtol and one Aramaic example with a 
>participle:
>
>Gen  19:11 "and they struggled (tried to) find the door" wayyiqtol.
>Dan 2:8 "you are trying to gain time" Peal participle
>
>Either you have misread the text of Luke 9:49 or you think of another text.
>The verb translated "tried to prevent" is an imperfect (thus being
>imperfective) and not an aorist. This is what should be expected.
>If you look into the Archives of b-greek, you will find my comments on
>Hebrews 11:17 (not 11:4). I suggest that the perfect be taken in the
>meaning "By faith Abraham as good as offered Isaac".
>
>
>Regards
>Rolf
>
>Rolf Furuli
>Lecturer in Semitic languages
>University of Oslo
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Subject: Re: wayyiqtol test
>From: "Bryan Rocine" <596547 AT ican.net>
>Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 12:40:25 -0500
>X-Message-Number: 4
>
>Hi Rolf,  you wrote:
>> In the middle of an extremely busy schedule I could not resist the
>> temptation to comment on your post.
>> I beg to differ with your fundamental principle: " Sequence and
>> perfectivity are inseperable." The principle is valid in English where
>> aspects are not grammaticalized, but I see no reason why it should be so
>in
>> a language where aspects are morphologically marked.  There are examples
>in
>> Aramaic, Syriac, and Phoenician of perfective and imperfective forms used
>> in sequences. The last example I saw was in an Accadian letter from Mari
>> about the king Zimri Lim, which we studied in class last week.
>
>Thanks for taking the time to respond!
>
>Help me out:  I am suspicious of the comparisons to cognate languages that
>depend on mere nomenclature because I suspect (Ewaldian?) tradition in the
>study Semitic languages may have had more to do with the *labeling* of the
>verb forms than an unbiased examination, one language at a time, of the
>*meanings* and *functions* of the forms in a particular language.  Is there
>a tendency in the field to call anything with a prefixed subject an
>imperfect without real regard to what the form means?  Is there an
>assumption that perfect is an adequate label for any verb with a suffixed
>subject pronoun merely because it is a suffixed form?  Is my suspicion
>unfounded?
>
><snip>
>> 
>> Let me use three examples of wayyiqtols which show the imperfectivity of
>> the form, two of them are conative and the third is future:
>> 
>> Ex. 8:14 "The magicians tried by their secret arts to bring forth gnats,
>> but they could not. So there were gnats on man  and beast. "
>> 
>> Jer. 37:12 "Jeremiah set out from Jerusalem to go to the land of Benjamin
>> to receive his portion there among the people."  (Jeremiah did not leave
>> Jerusalem)
>
>These two look perfective to me.
>
>> 
>> Jer. 38:9  "My lord the king, these men have done evil in all that they
>did
>> to Jeremiah the prophet by casting him into the cistern; and he will die
>> there of hunger, for there is no bread left in the city." (Jeremiah did
>not
>> die)
>
>Interesting example.  Just for the sake of arguement:  might the sense of
>vayamat be "so he is as good as dead"?  Can you give me more examples like
>this?  Gen 19:11 looks perfective to me.  Thanks.
>
>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)
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Subject: Re: Historiography and the Scriptures of Israel
>From: Rodney Duke <dukerk AT appstate.edu>
>Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 11:07:24 -0500
>X-Message-Number: 5
>
>Ken Litwak asked:
>
>:... Let us
>:focus on just ONE thing at a time please.  Do you have any
>suggestiojns
>:for criteria for establishing the likely dates of compositions
>oa any
>:texts?  
>
>What about text criticism?  Any help here?  I understand that
>Bruce Waltke wrote a dissertation that was a text-critical
>analysis of the Samaritan Pentateuch in which he showed the SP
>had modernized its Vorlage in places.  Such results, if valid,
>would provide some relative dating and, if the date of the
>emergence of the SP can be established, then perhaps one could
>move toward absolute dating.  I don't know--not my field of
>expertise.  What do you think?
>
>Rodney
>Rodney K. Duke
>Dept. of Phil. & Rel., Appalachian State Uni., Boone, NC 28608  
>(O)828-262-3091, (FAX) 828-262-6619, dukerk AT appstate.edu
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Subject: Re[2]: wayyiqtol test
>From: Peter_Kirk AT SIL.ORG
>Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 00:38:16 -0500 (EST)
>X-Message-Number: 6
>
>
>But in LXX, the wayyiqtols in both Ex. 8:14 and Jer 37:12 are 
>translated with Greek aorists, so perfective: EPOIHSAN in Ex. 8:14 and 
>EXHLQEN in Jer 44:12 (LXX); so an aorist cannot be "impossible in such 
>situations". This tends to confirm the theory that wayyiqtol was 
>understood (at least in Alexandria) as perfective even in contexts 
>which indicate some conflict with perfectivity, i.e. they got the 
>perfectivity from the verb form and not from the pragmatics. But I 
>don't see any necessary contradiction with perfectivity:
>
>Ex 8:14: They did try something (and then gave up), they did not 
>succeed.
>
>Jer 37:12: The point where Jeremiah was arrested, B.:$A(AR (v.13), 
>could well have been considered as outside the city, such that 
>Jeremiah did complete going out of the city.
>
>Jer 38:9: the wayyiqtol is rendered in LXX by the present 
>(imperfective) infinitive APOKTEINAI (45:9 LXX), which may suggest a 
>hiphil form of MWT in the LXX Vorlage and so sheds doubt on the form 
>WAY.FMFT in the original Hebrew. 
>
>Peter Kirk
>
>
>______________________________ Reply Separator 
>_________________________________
>Subject: Re: wayyiqtol test
>Author:  furuli AT online.no at internet
>Date:    13/02/1999 13:48
>
><snip>
>
>Let me use three examples of wayyiqtols which show the imperfectivity of 
>the form, two of them are conative and the third is future:
>
>Ex. 8:14 "The magicians tried by their secret arts to bring forth gnats, 
>but they could not. So there were gnats on man  and beast. "
>
>Jer. 37:12 "Jeremiah set out from Jerusalem to go to the land of Benjamin 
>to receive his portion there among the people."  (Jeremiah did not leave 
>Jerusalem)
>
>Jer. 38:9  "My lord the king, these men have done evil in all that they did 
>to Jeremiah the prophet by casting him into the cistern; and he will die 
>there of hunger, for there is no bread left in the city." (Jeremiah did not 
>die)
>
>As far as I know, all examples of conative situations in the Hebrew OT and 
>Greek NT are described by Greek imperfect/ present (imperfective) and 
>Hebrew yiqtol/wayyiqtol (imperfective). If my model is correct, an aorist 
>or a qatal/weqatal would be impossible in such situations.
>
>
>Regards
>Rolf
>
>Rolf Furuli
>Lecturer in Semitic languages
>University of Oslo
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Subject: Re: Concord
>From: "Matthew Anstey" <manstey AT portal.ca>
>Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 13:35:37 -0800
>X-Message-Number: 7
>
>Gday Mark,
>
>You wrote,
>
>>I know that the lack of accord is common, but the question is, "why?"
>>Speakers of inflected languages simply *don't* talk like that (I speak
>>two inflected languages fluently); they inflect the words automatically,
>>whether speaking or writing. Even in English, except for Ebionics and
>>parodies of Ebionics, no one says "I be" or "he go."
>>
>>So why would (or even, "how could") a speaker of Hebrew write "they (fem.
>>plur.) did (masc. sing.)"?
>
>Can a "why" question be answered with reference to just textual data in the
>MT? Perhaps sociolinguistics, or some other recent field of study would shed
>light on your question. Also, how would you explain the shift in English
>nowadays with sentences like this, "The student liked to exercise very much.
>This preference was based on their great stamina." The word "their" does not
>agree in number with "the student," but this is accepted grammar now.
>Another example (from Givon) is "If you see anybody there, tell them to ..."
>The "them" used to be unacceptable.
>
>So, I cannot answer your question. But if the language is understandable,
>and communicates, is 100% concord necessary?
>
>Matthew
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Subject: BH, tenselessness, reply to smith
>From: Vincent DeCaen <decaen AT chass.utoronto.ca>
>Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 17:56:21 -0500 (EST)
>X-Message-Number: 8
>
>andrew,
>
>your comment missed the crucial point: while all languages started out
>with a "simpler tense distinction" (not tenseless in 1826!), only
>sanskrit, thence greek and latin developed the true, advanced "three
>tense" system.... at least on that view.
>
>every other noneuropean system therefore is "arrested" and "primitive"
>compared to the advanced european system. on one view, its the mental
>incapacity that prevents others from developing it; on a more
>charitable view, it's the language you speak that determines
>cognition, and it's just bad luck you don't speak the advanced system.
>
>the argument can still be found in sources from the 1980s onwards: i'm
>collecting my hall of shame, that includes israeli nutcases that
>conclude it's the tenseless arabic that explains their arrested
>culture, etc.
>
>i'm also interested in the resistance to larger language family
>relations, especially the relation of indoeuropean to anything else,
>and the relation to 19th century racism: that's quite a topic in
>itself. ;-)
>
>cheers
>V 
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>Dr. Vincent DeCaen <decaen AT chass.utoronto.ca>
>c/o Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations
>4 Bancroft Ave., 2d floor
>University of Toronto
>Toronto ON, CANADA, M5S 1A1
>
>Hebrew Syntax Encoding Initiative
>http://www.chass.utoronto.ca:8080/~decaen/hsei/
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>Scepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and it is shameful to
>surrender it too soon or to the first comer.     --Santayana
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Subject: language families, imperialism, racism, etc.
>From: Andrew C Smith <a.c.smith AT juno.com>
>Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 19:06:43 EST
>X-Message-Number: 9
>
>Vince wrote:
>
>>i'm also interested in the resistance to larger language family
>>relations, especially the relation of indoeuropean to anything else,
>>and the relation to 19th century racism: that's quite a topic in itself.
>
>But the "larger" family relations, i.e. relating several families
>together into a meta-family, was an idea which naturally and obviously
>arose, almost of itself, once the indo-european system was completed, in
>the minds of the same people who created the indo-european system. Hardly
>a resistence to the idea: they were the ones who came up with it.
>
>Again: certainly there were more than enough racists in the 19th century.
>But to say that the entire indo-germanische Sprachwissenschaft was a
>racist fiction is going too far.
>
>
>
>
>___________________________________________________________________
>You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
>Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
>or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Subject: euro-imperialism, BH, tenselessness
>From: Andrew C Smith <a.c.smith AT juno.com>
>Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 19:06:43 EST
>X-Message-Number: 10
>
>Vince,
>
>You wrote that the "standard view" says:
>
>>while all languages started out
>>with a "simpler tense distinction" (not tenseless in 1826!), only
>>sanskrit, thence greek and latin developed the true, advanced "three
>>tense" system.... at least on that view. every other noneuropean system
>>therefore is "arrested" and "primitive" compared to the advanced
>>european system
>
>But the Sanskrit branch of the Indo-European family was primarily the
>Hindus in India. If this system were motivated by racism, why would
>German and English linguists attribute an "advanced" language to the
>Hindus who were subjugated to the British Empire? And, if, as you say,
>"only Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin" had the "advanced" tense distinction,
>where does that leave the Germanic family? And it was the Germans who
>invented systematic and comparative indo-european philology!
>
>There is no doubt that there were many racists and imperialists in Europe
>in those days, and that some of them were probably linguists. But to say
>that the whole system of indo-european linguistics was driven by racism
>is to go beyond the available evidence.
>
>I would rather return to your other argument, which was that there were
>certain theological interpretations which benefitted from the concept of
>a "tenseless" Hebrew.
>
>- A.C. Smith
>
>
>
>
>
>___________________________________________________________________
>You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
>Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
>or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Subject: BH, tenseless, reply to smith II
>From: Vincent DeCaen <decaen AT chass.utoronto.ca>
>Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 19:39:25 -0500 (EST)
>X-Message-Number: 11
>
>it's a matter of looking at the literature, my friend. i'm not
>speculating or making up stuff: it's there in black and white.
>indoeuropean scholars *did* resist the obvious connections tooth and
>nail. and despite the contradictions, apparent or otherwise, sanskrit
>was infinitely superior because of the time depth. also, there was a
>huge love affair with german romantics and the vedas: any intellectual
>worth anything was studying sanskrit. don't forget also that there's a
>big difference between vedic aryans, in their eyes, and the current
>inhabitants of india.
>
>what you say by way of objection is strictly speaking true, but hey...
>life's like that. it's interesting that for some the primitive nature
>of german was an advantage: as a primitive language it was a better
>vehicle of poetry and direct inspiration: go figure.
>
>the other business is worth pursuing. can we find commentaries from
>the mid 1800s by the biggies like ewald, etc, and those cultivating
>his views, that make use of the theory for, e.g., isaiah 53? that
>would be extremely interesting.
>
>also, i'm following the vicious debate between ewald and lee: would be
>interesting to see how it comes out on this relativity issue. lee was
>up in arms at the linguistic free-for-all suggested by ewald.
>
>just some thoughts....
>
>btw, there's an interesting book by Ruhlen, The Origin of Language
>1994, that also presents a bit of a j'accuse. but it's not documented
>as such.
>
>cheers
>V 
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>Dr. Vincent DeCaen <decaen AT chass.utoronto.ca>
>c/o Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations
>4 Bancroft Ave., 2d floor
>University of Toronto
>Toronto ON, CANADA, M5S 1A1
>
>Hebrew Syntax Encoding Initiative
>http://www.chass.utoronto.ca:8080/~decaen/hsei/
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>Scepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and it is shameful to
>surrender it too soon or to the first comer.     --Santayana
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Subject: Re: BH, agendas and tenselessness?
>From: "Lewis Reich" <LBR AT sprynet.com>
>Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 21:15:00 -0500
>X-Message-Number: 12
>
>On 14 Feb 99, at 13:27, Vincent DeCaen wrote:
>
>> this involves crucially the use of hebrew qatal, otherwise a
>> past/perfective/realis form. if the system **only** encodes aspect,
>> then we are free to read crucial texts as future and irrealis.
>> so.... at a really basic level, the tenseless approach is highly
>> functional for christian apologists. 
>
>I'm not sure I understand why this tactic would be so tendentiously helpful; 
> it 
>sems to me that there are certainly enough prophetic utterances that clearly 
>look to the future that it should not be necessary to manufacture more, 
>unless some particularly suggestive passages were at stake.
>
>Lewis Reich
>LBR AT sprynet.com
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Subject: Re: BH, agendas and tenselessness?
>From: "Bryan Rocine" <596547 AT ican.net>
>Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 22:13:47 -0500
>X-Message-Number: 13
>
>B-Haverim,
>
>Vince write:
>> i continue my studies on that fateful year of 1826 when ewald came up
>> with his idea of the verbal system based on his study of sanskrit and
>> comparative indoeuropean studies. in part i have argued that this view
>> was motivated by 19th cent racism, a view not original with me.
>> 
>>
>
>Let me have a little fun re racism:  we can be blind to the possibilities
>sometimes.  
>
>For instance, imagine a people that don't multiply (as in arithmetic!). 
>They can double numbers, they can halve numbers (kind of...they only deal
>with whole numbers so half of odd numbers is rounded down, e.g., half of 3
>is 1), they know whether numbers are odd or even, and they can add. Equipt
>with this quirky, as it may seem to me, set of skills, this people can
>efficiently and accurately figure the total cost of 37 apples at 17 cents a
>piece or for us, 37 X 17.
>
>Observe these steps:
>
>1a. write the two relevant numbers beside each other(it doesn't matter
>which one is on the right or left)
>1b. keep halving the left # until you get to 1 and
>1c. double the right # as many times as you halve the left
>
>Result:
>37           17      
>18           34
>9             68
>4             136
>2             272
>1             544
>
>2. Get rid of every row which has an even # on the left
>
>Result:
>37            17
>9              68
>1            544
>
>3.  Add the #'s which remain on the right
>
>Result:
>              629  
>
>RIGHT!  
>
>Note:  It works every time.
>Another note:  Is there really a group of people who work this way?  I
>heard yes, but I don't really know.
>
>So why does BH have to have tenses?  Because we do?  I know, I know.  It's
>a silly analogy.  I said I just wanted to have a little fun.  
>
>Anyhow, would anyone like to comment on these words of McFall (The Enigma
>of the Hebrew Verbal System: Solutions from Ewald to the Present Day): 
>"Turner's view is intriguing because it is the only solution that places a
>real psychological gap between the Hebrew and the Indo-Germanic modes of
>thought.  The general assumption in the other solutions has been either to
>view Hebrew as a tense system, or as a rudimentary, crude, or elementary
>tense system in a developing state.  These assumptions are due no doubt to
>the fact that all solutions put forward in the period under review have
>been the work of 'European' scholars.  One wonders what assumptions
>non-European scholars (Chinese, Indonesian, Japanese, etc.) would
>unconsciously adopt in their approach to the HVS[Hebrew Verbal System].  We
>must keep in mind that the European scholars have unconsciously, and
>understandably, looked for the familiar in the HVS.  Every care must be
>taken in the future studies of the HVS not to approach it with any
>preconceived ideas regarding the nature of its verbal system.  Turner's
>solution has avoided the natural tendency observed in all other solutions
>to align the HVS with his own native language.  In this he is virtually
>unique, and this is his valuable contribution to future studies in this
>area"(184)
>
>BTW, Turner was a Christian, I think.  How about McFall?
>
>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)
>
>
>
>---
>
>END OF DIGEST
>
>---
>You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: schrader AT ncsi.net
>To unsubscribe, forward this message to $subst('Email.Unsub')
>To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.
>