Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Peter Kirk" <Peter_Kirk AT sil.org>]

Dave, I don't want to get into further argument between prescriptive grammar
(this is right, this is wrong) and descriptive grammar (the language is what
people actually speak, not what the teachers say they should speak) as that
is irrelevant to the main point. (However, I do object to your arrogant
defence of a debatable position in the words "the fact - yes it is a
fact -". I was just reading on another list of someone who disliked
generative grammar because its proponents are seen as arrogant. This would
seem to confirm that prejudice.) I am not trying to argue that the grammar
here is anything outside the common Hebrew usage, though perhaps Dan is.

So let me try to explain my view in terms which at least approximate to the
generative grammar which you approve of. The following tree is designed to
work with a fixed space font. This is how I would
parse )EH:YEH ):A$ER )EH:YEH according to Dan's understanding of )EH:YEH as
a name:

        S
       / \
      / Complement
     /   /     \
    /   /       NP
   /   /       /  \
  /   /       /    S
 /   /       /    / \
P   V       C    P   V
|   |       |    |   |
0 )EH:YEH ):A$ER 0 )EH:YEH
I     am  named "I   am"

(Note: the gloss "am" is for simplicity and not intended to indicate my
position on the present-past-future debate.)

Actually the tree looks just the same on the more traditional "I am that I
am" understanding, it is just the English glossing and the meaning which is
different. The name is (at least arguably) not just the verb )EH:YEH but the
whole sentence consisting of this verb form and the elided pronoun. As I
understand it (though without reading all of this correspondence in detail)
Dan is taking ):A$ER, normally a complementiser or relativiser (C), as some
kind of indicator that what follows is a name. Even if there were no ):A$ER
and no elided pronoun, I would still parse something like:

   NP
   |
   V
   |
)EH:YEH

i.e. )EH:YEH is a verb at a lower level, but functions as a noun phrase at a
higher level.

Now how does that pass for generative grammar?

Peter Kirk


-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Washburn [mailto:dwashbur AT nyx.net]
Sent: 11 May 2001 19:44
To: Biblical Hebrew
Subject: RE: _)aSHER_ in Ex. 3:14 (was "I AM")

<snip>

So I
> disagree with your "A verb being used as a name still retains its
character
> as a verb, even though it fills a "nominal" slot" (notice how your whole
> sentence has become a nominal qualified by a possessive adjective). It
> really is not that simple.

Actually it is.  There's an elided object and relativizer in your
sentence that the reader implicitly understands because of the use
of the quotation marks: *So I disagree with [your statement that
says] X" etc.  This is why I greatly prefer generative grammar over
functional grammar: it has much greater explanatory adequacy.

> To bring this back to Hebrew, you can't do this directly there I guess,
> though words like ZAQEN can function as both adjectives and verbs.

Don't the lexicons recognize these as homonyms?  I'm afraid
you're trying too hard, Peter.  It is very possible that in 'ehyeh 'a$er
'ehyeh we have an instance of "bad" Hebrew grammar.  I don't think
this is part of Dan's view (which is what we're actually discussing),
but it's a possibility and could explain how the second 'ehyeh and
the next occurrence could function as a name even though it's a
verb.  We have a similar example in the Greek of the NT.  I don't
recall the reference right offhand, but someone comes to Jesus and
says "If you can, please do this."  Jesus replies, TO EI DUNH,
which roughly comes out "As for your 'if you can', it's done."  This
puts a definite article on a conditional clause.  It gets the point
across, but it's a violation of Greek grammar.  Revelation is full of
such examples.  The first chapter, I think it is, includes the clause
APO HO WN.  APO is a preposition that takes a genitive object,
but HO WN is a nominative.  Again, bad grammar.  "Decisioned" is
in the same category as "bad" English.  Violations of accepted
grammatical patterns happen all the time and they're a fact of life.
It's also a fact of life that they are perceived as such by hearers.
Obviously grammatical rules aren't carved in stone, and hence we
have diachronic linguistics.  But from a synchronic point of view, we
have to deal with the fact - yes it is a fact - that "decisioned" is a
noun that has been incorrectly morphed into a verbal slot.  Bringing
the discussion back to where we began, in the case of 'ehyeh we
have a verb that may be occupying a nominal slot.  That doesn't
make it a morphological or grammatical nominal.  It makes it an
oddity, which is probably why we're having so much trouble with it.


Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
"You just keep thinking, Butch.  That's what you're good at."