Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Studium Biblicum Franciscanum <sbfnet AT netvision.net.il>]

 Dear listmembers,

Discussion is going on concerning Joüon's grammar and BH as VSO or SVO language.
Joüon's is a fine grammar, no doubt, and Muraoka did a great job in translating it and adding a lot of new literature, particularly in modern Hebrew. However, Joüon's grammar remained much the same. Muraoka did not incorporate the insights of text-linguistics or discourse analysis, and not only because it meant rewriting Joüon.

We can hardly debate BH as VSO or SVO language unless we first discuss the basic issue, that is the difference betwen a sentence that has a finite verbform in the first place and one that has a finite verbform in the second place. This is the point that I'm reiterating time and again.
We have to decide whether or not a sentence type *wehannaxa$ hayâ `arûm* (Gen. 3:1), or *weha'adam yada` 'et-xawwâ 'i$tô* (4:1) are main sentences or not, independent or dependent--not to speak of *bere'$ît bara' 'elohîm 'et ha$$amayim we'et ha'areTS*.
Further, we have to decide what is the difference between sentences like *wayyibra' 'elohîm 'et-ha'adam beTSalmô* and the two following, *beTSelem 'elohîm bara' 'otô, zakar ûneqebâ bara' 'otam* (1:27), or between *wayyo'mer YHWH 'elohîm 'el-hannaxa$*, and the two following, *'el-ha'i$$â 'amar ...  ûle'adam 'amar* (3:14, 16, 17).

IMO what matters is the position of the finite verb relative to a nonverbal element of the sentence, be it the subject, or the object, or a complement, or an adverb, while the relative position of the nonverbal elements among themselves is of minor importance. In other words, the fundamental opposition is not VSO versus SOV (or whatever) but rather between verb-x and x-verb.

IMO the place of the verb in the sentence is the first criterion of syntactic analysis of BH. The second one is the linguistic level--main (unmarked type of sentence in historical narrative and in direct speech) and secondary (marked type of sentence in historical narrative and in direct speech). The two criteria need to be used together.

In the analysis, we need to start from grammar--different verbforms and other constructions attested in the texts, then go up to syntax--reciprocal relationships of the different verbforms and constructions, and finally to semantics--interpretation, context.  By proceeding step by step, one arrives at a coherent description of the verbal system of BH--coherent as much as a language is.

Is there still a need to note that the origin of the verbal forms need not to be significant in order to understand their usage? Diachronic research can hardly replace or override synchronic analysis of the texts. Looking for more or less original forms is interesting and fruitful but it can not solve the problem of the BH verbal system. We can not decide the functions based on the origin (even if known with certainty).

Peace and all good.
Alviero Niccacci
Please, in your reply put the addressee name in the subject
=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=
Studium Biblicum Franciscanum      Tel. +972 - 2 - 6282 936
POB 19424 - 91193 - Jerusalem      Fax  +972 - 2 - 6264 519
Israel
Home Page:     http://198.62.75.1/www1/ofm/sbf/SBFmain.html
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Professors Email  mailto:sbfnet AT netvision.net.il
Students Email mailto:sbfstud AT netvision.net.il
o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o