Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re[3]: Tidbits from Ruth (Paul)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: peter_kirk AT SIL.ORG
  • To: b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re[3]: Tidbits from Ruth (Paul)
  • Date: Sat, 08 May 1999 15:53:04 -0400


Dear Rolf,

Thank you for your helpful answers to myself and to Paul. I was
interested in your observations on philosophy of science - I was also
originally trained in natural sciences.

You wrote to Paul: "Regarding WAYYIQTOL and tense, there are just two
possibilities, either it is past tense or it is not. So the Hebrew
verbs readily lend themself to a Popperian test."

No, surely there are other possibilities. If you falsify the
hypothesis that WAYYIQTOL is a past tense, you are left with no theory
for what it is, but it is still something. You still have Duhem's
problem. Is it an aspect? Is it some strange mixture? Is it something
new which no-one has defined before? Such falsification does not get
you very far.

You wrote to me: "I suppose you will not claim that anybody on the
list who is doing discourse analysis has not already made up his mind
whether the way-element of WAYYIQTOL is just a conjunction or
something else. You do not learn the meaning of the way-element by
discourse analysis, you have to assume this meaning."

I cannot speak in detail for others, but I think that they have
decided on their understanding of WAYYIQTOL on the basis of the
evidence rather than a priori. They certainly could do in principle.

Consider the following scenario of someone starting from first
principles and no presuppositions about verb tense-aspect-modality.
This person starts by finding a set of parallel passages covering the
same operations but with different discourse types: the instructions
for building the tabernacle and the account of its building. He notes
in the instructions verb forms like YA(:A&EH and W:(F&FH, and that in
the parallel account these are (mostly) replaced by (F&FH and
WAY.A(A&. At this stage he is not clear of the differences between
YA(:A&EH and W:(F&FH, and between (F&FH and WAY.A(A&, but he is
already realising that the first pair is used in instructional
contexts and the second pair in past narrative. He will quickly decide
that the WAY.A(A& form is the commonest verb form used in past
sequential contexts (although it would be premature at this stage to
decide whether it is semantically or pragmatically past and
sequential). This conclusion is something derived from study of the
text rather than decided a priori. Furthermore, this student would
have no good reason to think that YA(:A&EH and WAY.A(A& are especially
closely related, as you seem to insist a priori.

Peter Kirk





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page