Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Rolf Furuli wrote:

> Dear Peter,
>
> Before we suggest a new classification of language I would like to ask a
> few questions. It seems that several members of this list hold the view
> that verbs have different meanings in prose (or narrative) and poetry. I
> suspect that the primary reason for this view is that many verbs in
> non-narrative texts contradict the person's grammatical model for narrative
> texts, thus it is in principle an ad hoc explanation.
>
> Those who have data showing that this is wrong, please stand up and defend
> your case by answering the following questions:
>
> (1) It is claimed that verbs also have different meanings in prose and
> poetry in other languages. Which languages?
> (2) In the languages where the difference in meaning is supposed to occur,
> exactly what is the difference? Is the difference found in main clauses or
> only in irreal clauses. Are there languages where poetry generally changes
> the "tense" of a verb? (NB: I am not speaking about idioms.)
> (3) Regarding Hebrew, which data apart from tense and aspect (which cannot
> be used in the explanation because of circularity) show that particular
> verbs have one meaning in prose (or narrative) and another in poetry.
> Exactly what is the difference in meaning and by help of which parameters
> can it be pinpointed?
>
> If these questions cannot be satisfactorily answered, there is just one
> conclusion that can be drawn: The fundamental conjugations in Hebrew, be
> they two or four, have the same meaning in any genre. Honestly speaking, I
> am quite bored by references such as "But this is poetry", "This is this.",
> and "This is that.". Please stand up and produce some evidence!
>

Rolf,

I have bit back a response several times when you have made this statement 
about
others (in this case, "several members of this list") holding to a view that 
verbs
have different meanings in prose vs. poetry. The *only* one I consistently 
see making
such a statement is you, and you are always ascribing it to the unspecified 
"others".

On the contrary, I have noted most hold to a very consistent underlying 
principle of
the use of the verb forms.  Poetry *is* more free to modify the forms, for 
emphasis,
rhythm, or whatever, but this is true in any language, is it not?  The very
order-consciousness of the English language gets put aside frequently in its 
poetry,
yet no one claims a separate grammar for it.  They simply refer to "poetic 
license."
Rolf, I posit that "poetic license" plays a role in Hebrew grammar as well.  
And as
such, we should not build or modify the entire grammatical system based 
solely or even
mostly on what happens in an environment that is extremely sensitive to the 
artistic
presentation of ideas.  When I paddle a canoe, I use the same basic strokes.  
But when
I get in the rapids, my application of those strokes changes drastically.  
Poetry is
fast flowing water, and the grammar used there probably reflects the outside 
borders
of the significance of the verb forms.

Please, tell us *who* claims *what* before you generalize a position that you 
go on to
argue against.

All the best,

Paul