Biblical Hebrew Forum

[yochanan bitan <ButhFam AT compuserve.com>]

First an "amen" to Peter Scott's mentioning the Even Shoshan concordance: 

The Even-Shoshan concordance  is perhaps the most important, single tool
for good lexical work, followed by access to the post-biblical texts
through either Even-Shoshan dictionary or the concordances/search-programs
of rabbinics.

After continual work with teaching Biblical Hebrew, and with great
appreciation for the wealth of knowledge brought from cognate languages,
the true, full meaning of any word remains its use in context by a
particular community. The Even-shoshan CONCORDANCE makes the greatest
single contribution to that goal.

How?
Yes, of course, it lists every occurrence with a brief context. 
In ADDITION: it indexes many collocations, that is, other words that
co-occur with a word in a particular context.
AND more importantly, though subliminally, it lists synonyms AND words from
the same semantic domain. (Note well, this is not referring to simple
cognates from the same root, which are separately listed. Those may or may
not function in the same domain or as synonyms.) 
Having a rudimentary reflection of semantic domains reminds a reader of
which other word MIGHT have been chosen in any one context but were NOT
CHOSEN. In other words, it reinforces the often overlooked fact that
'meaning' within any language is defined within itself and against all the
other options in that language. How to 'unpack' that last sentence? It
means that English is defined within English, against English, and with
co-occurring English. English is not defined by Chinese or German. And they
are not defined by English.

Of course, Biblical Hebrew is only "half a language", more likely "1/3",
since most of the contrasting and parallel material has not survived.
(Colloquial languages typically have 20,000 words, Biblical Hebrew only
lists 8000!) 
Even-Shoshan is the best tool at present for providing this overall
perspective.

***
While discussing lexicons Peter Scott referred to the 'modern' question,
maybe some perspective can be added there, too. 

(Scott:)
>It is not all clear that your "qatals" and 
>"yiqtols" are in fact "real past and future verb tenses."

I think the point on which John Childs wrote and Peter responded, would
have been better stated: 

a SPEAKER starts to sense how to USE the Biblical verb is PAST situations,
in PRESENT situations in FUTURE situations, Repetitive, Proverbial,
pointing-out the INCOMPLETE, et al. 

One finds that the language was able to function just fine with its verbs
and time, 
maybe with some haze on the horizon, 
but without the fog frequently assumed or presented to students. 

Example:
traditionally students are told, "the participle is NOT a present tense but
a continuous-aspect adjective'

Well, that may be technically correct or justifiable, but it is 'inside
out'. 
It leaves the students not knowing how to refer to the actual present 
(please note well, I am not refering to "grammatical" 'present' forms in
English like 'I run (alot)' that are basically habituals and not refering
to the actual moment). 

If they read their Bible with their eyes open they will discover that the
default, 
real present is (+ / -  X  [including focal participles] +Subject) +
Participle. 
The default decoding in speech of Subject--Participle is an actual present
situation. Surprise? 
Yet many with much learning of biblical Hebrew can't encode, or mis-encode,
a present description because of having learned a 'code':  "participle is
not present tense". 

SUGGESTION: don't teach that the participle is "not the present tense".
instead TEACH that the participle is "more than a present tense, it is also
a continuous adjective in any time frame". That is more 'inside in'.

(historically, yes, that was a development from Proto-WS/Semitic and
encroached on the older prefix-tense, 
but the participle was already in place in biblical Hebrew. Considerations
like habituals and proverbs, modals, more-polite questions still defaulted
to the prefix tense.)

Anyway, people who speak modern Hebrew find it easier to ask questions
about how communication would take place in old Hebrew. They must still do
their homework, like anyone, but they have a pleasant enjoyable time doing
it.

N.B.: I am not intending to reopen the continual problem on this list of
"defining" the Hebrew verb. I want to put it in perspective, add a
dimension, as to how -- fluent facility with any dialect of the language to
the point that it leads to asking questions about real language usage in
another dialect-- can lead to very satisfying understanding and use of real
biblical Hebrew. 
Use becomes distinctly clearer than reading many conflicting theories from
"outside", especially if formulated by non-users. 

PSS: None on this list would adequately know English, either, if they
didn't use it: "present" habituals [do]?, "voluntative" futures [will do]?
"pro-verb" past questions and negatives with 'did'? "Participle" presents
[am doing]?  What a crazy system. 
***

braxot 
Randall Buth