Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <Rolf.Furuli AT east.uio>]

Dear Matthew and  Vince,

As you both correctly say, linguistic theory must play an important role in 
the study of BH. However, the theory we use should function as a framework 
to which we can refer, and which can help us make our study orderly and 
systematic. A theory that implicitly has the linguistic answers we are 
seeking before we start to process our data, gives little insight. This 
means that the data have priority and the theory is just a device to order 
the data.

What has surprised me more than once when I have read previous studies of 
Hebrew verbs, is the lack of interest in finding a theory that can help us 
distinguish between semantic factors  (factors having uncancellable 
meaning) and pragmatic  factors (factors having cancellable meaning, 
depending on the context). I am simply not aware of a single study with 
this approach.

Let me illustrate the need for the mentioned approach:

In unpointd texts there is no formal difference between WAYYIQTOL and 
WEYIQTOL (many WEYIQTOLs are apocopated). Therefore, assuming that YIQTOL 
represents the imperfective aspect, we cannot know from the original 
morphology whether WAYYIQTOL is an expression of the conjunction WAW+the 
imperfective aspect, or whether it repsesents something completely 
different, say, the perfective aspect.

Three basic arguments have been used in favor of WAYYIQTOL representing 
the  perfective aspect, 1) most WAYYIQTOLs have past reference, 2) hundreds 
of WAYYIQTOL verbs occur as telic verb phrases, and 3) most WAYYIQTOLs seem 
to have the same function as QATAL.. The use of theories that are prone to 
induce their theoretical load upon the data, would probably lead to the 
conclusion that WAYYIQTOL do represent the perfective aspect as does QATAL, 
Thus the conclusion is that WAYYIQTOL is *semantically* perfective (the 
perfectivity cannotbe cancelled).

However, consider the following data: I have lists of about 900 YIQTOLs and 
1.750 participles (most of them being active participles) with *past* 
reference. These are the same roots that are used as WAYYIQTOL ( for 
instance, )FMAR is used 2.600 times as WAYYIQTOL , tventy times as a 
participle,and ten times as YIQTOL, all  with past reference), and several 
hundreds occur in telic verb phrases. Most of the 8,000 participles occur 
in direct speech contexts, but 90 per cent of the participles occurring in 
"narrative" contexts have past reference.

So the three argumnts presented above in favor of WAYYIQTOLs being 
perfective hold good in in the case of the mentioned YIQTOLs and 
participles as well. So the qustion arises: Is there a semantic reason (the 
form is inherrently perfective) for the past reference of WAYYIQTOL but a 
pragmatic reason (the context is the reason for the past reference) of the 
YIQTOL and WAYYIQTOL? Or can it be that the past reference of the WAYYIQTOL 
is pragmatic as well, and that most textbooks are wrong? Generative grammar 
or Optimality theory or the like cannot answer these questions, but we need 
a simple and clearcut theory which can help us distinguish between 
pragmatic and semantic factors in a text.


Regards

Rolf

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo


M & E Anstey wrote:
Hi Vince

snip
>
> (1) what alternative to linguistic theory is there for studying BH?

I think that from an empirical standpoint (in the light of contemporary
linguistic/scientific research), there is no alternative. But I also think
that the observations (however intuitive or "non-theoretical") of seasoned
readers of BH offer substantial insight into the text. I have conversed
about linguistic issues with many Hebraists whose knowledge of BH is vastly
more than mine and I invariably learn much from such conversations.
Likewise, many previous (ie from antiquity onwards) studies of BH employ no
"canonical" linguistic theory (to put it diplomatically!), but nevertheless
shed further light on the language. And I also think that the use of
linguistic theory is a necessary and important activity in studying BH.

>snip