Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Title: RE: Hebrew Syntax.

Dear Peter (and Rodney),

The "minimal- pair" situation where there is just a one graphic difference between two entities is the easiest situation to handle in linguistics, because all linguistic differences must be caused by this single graphic difference. The  situation that is farthest away from that ideal situation is discourse analysis because the one working with this has to handle hundreds of factors at once (scores of words in sentences and paragraphs, lexical semantics, grammar, syntax, linguistic convention, idioms, linguistic convention etc) So there is a great danger of circularity and wrong conclusions in the attempt to deal with so many words and factors at the same time. I am not rejecting the method, to the contrary, I myself use discourse analysis. But the method should be used where it belongs and not other areas.

In my view the book of Waltke and O'Connor is the best modern treatment of Hebrew syntax, and my experience is that it is very helpful for studens. Any work has a particular angle of approach, and I think that the authors have succeeded very well in achieving their goals. I am very happy that the book is not marred with doscourse analysis, because it has no place in such a work.

If we approach the Hebrew verbal system in a systematic way, there are at least three areas that need to be singled out, and discourse analysis will only give results in one of the areas. The areas are 1) fundamental assumptions, 2) meaning of the morpho-syntactic forms, and 3) linguistic conventions and communication.

The assumptions used in almost all modern studies of Hebrew verbs, including W and O'C, stems from the Middle Ages; they were made on the basis of a tense view when the nature of aspect was unknown. The basic assumptions are that there are four different conjugations YIQTOL, WAYYIQTOL, QATAL, and WEQATAL. Discourse analysts and W and O'C should not be criticized for usind these assumptions, because any study must use some assumptions. We should however keep in mind that the results of a study will not be better that its assumptions.

One important approach to the understanding of Hebrew verbs should be to question these assumptions and deal with them in a scientific way. Discourse analysis is completely impotent in this area, because these assumptions are the very axioms of discourse analysis.

Words have meaning, but in the lexicons we find only glosses and not the lexical meaning of words. Strictly speaking the lexical meaning of a word cannot be defined (only a general outline can be made), it must be *known* - by native speakers having the same presupposition pool. Polysemy exists, but generally a verb or substantive signals one concept in the minds of native speakers. Different sides of this concept is made visible in different contexts, and this is understood by native speakers. Similarly, groups of words (participles, infinitives, YIQTOLs QATALs etc) signal a common concept each, in the minds of native speakers, and to try to understand discourse analysis is again impotent, because it does not address such meaning.

If I ask: "What is the meaning of an English 'present participle'?" you may try to give a definition. But to give a very specific one, covering all its functions and uses, is not easy. After some thinking, however, you, as a native speaker, would come up with a generalization that would answer the question. How would you achieve this? Not by the help of discourse analysis, but by the help of your knowledge of English sentences where the present participle is used. A similar approach is necessary to understand the meaning of Hebrew verbs - and this is what W and O'C does in an excellent way. Discourse analysis would just cloud the picture.

The third area of study is communication, that is, the study of the linguistic conventions used by the people familiar with Classical Hebrew, to convey their thoughts to others. In this area discourse analysis can be a fine tool, but even here would I prefer to use other approaches first. The reason why I view discourse analysis as a secondary tool only, is that it cannot pinpoint *meaning*, just *patterns*, that it to a great degree is open for circularity, and that there are few if any controls that can be used to test the conclusions. What I see is that patters of foreground and background information X-QATAL  etc are established, and this is good and well as a pattern. But then other situations are interpreted in the light of these patterns as if the patterns were universal, but this is circular reasoning. Often the results seem to be forced as well.

In one chapter of my forthcoming dissertation I discuss how the communication of ideas took place in Classical Hebrew. I demonstrate by examples that all the finite and infinite forms (the participles, the infinitives, the prefix-forms (YIQTOL, WEYIQTOL, and WAYYIQTOL), the suffix-forms (QATAL  and WEQATAL) can be used for *any* temporal reference (pre-past, past, "perfect", present, and future) and for any mood. Then I show *why* there are different patterns when all the forms of the verbal system can be used for any temporal reference and mood. The answers are not based upon discourse analysis (that never can answer any *why*-question). But they are based on an analysis of the interplay of lexical semantics, Aktionsart, "procedural traits" (the semantic characteristics dynamicity, durativity, and telicity, and the pragmatic traits punctiliarity and stativity),"binyan", the singularity/plurality, indefinitenes/definitenes, and countability/uncountability of subject and object, adverbials etc.

The characteristic stativity may be used as an illustration. It is defined as something that continues without an input of energy; thus a state is durative but not dynamic. Any part of a state is similar to any other part or to the state as a whole. Communication means to make something visible to the listener or reader and to make other things invisible; verb forms serve as tools to achieve this. Whereas there is a difference in opinion regarding the nature of the perfective and imperfective aspects, there is common agreement that they represent different viewpoints. But what is the combination of viewpoint and stativity? Because a part of a state is similar to any other part, regardless of whether an infinitive, a participle, a WAYYIQTOL,  a YIQTOL, a WEYIQTOL, a QATAL or a WEQATAL  is used, exactly the same thing is made visible! Therefore we should not draw the conclusion that two forms have similar *meaning* if they have similar functions; first we must analyse the other factors. In some connections, therefore, any of the forms can be used, in others just one form can be used.

The only restrictions I have found after analysing the 60.000 finitie and infinite forms of the Tanach is that conative situations (something is attempted but not carried out) and situastions where one verb intersects another verb (as in "when John entered, Peter was reading the paper") can only be expressed by the imperfective aspect (YIQTOL, WEYIQTOL and WAYYIQTOL), and not with the perfective aspect (QATAL and WEQATAL). (BTW. In most states expressed by a WAYYIQTOL, the state is intersected in the middle (imperfective aspect),and not at the end, as in (1). The point in (1) is not that the slave "had loved" but that he "does" love. Even when the reference of a state is past, the intersection is usually in the middle.

(1) Deuteronomy 15:16 And it must occur (WAYYIQTOL) that in the case he says (YIQTOL) to you, "I will not go out (YIQTOL) from your company" because he does love (QATAL) you and your household

A very important problem with discourse analysis is the assumption that YIQTOL, WAYYIQTOL, QATAL, and WEQATAL are four different conjugations with different semantic meanings. If there are just two conjugations, as I will give very strong evidence in favor of, one is in fact analysing WAWs prefixed to verbs when one thinks one is analysing different conjugations. As an example of the magnitude of evidence against WAYYIQTOL being different from YIQTOL I have a list of 86 infinitive absolutes, 760 infinitive constructs, 1.745 participles (all these are used as finite verbs with past reference), and 1.020 YIQTOLs with past reference that fulfill the criteria that is the basis for ascribing the perfective aspect to the WAYYIQTOLs. In other words, if the WAYYIQTOLs are perfective, the same must all these 3.611 forms be. but that is of course nonsense.

To Rodney: My scepticism regarding the axioms of discourse analysis, and its usefulness to anything else than describing patterns, is the reason that I refrain from giving advise regarding your "trial thesis". I simply am not aware of how this method cangive us any insights regarding the meaning of the verbal system of Classical Hebrew

Regards

Rolf

Rolf Furuli

University of Oslo

> Another weakness of Waltke and O'Connor
> is that it rubbishes then
> ignores discourse analysis, and (in my
> opinion at least) its treatment
> of Hebrew verbs is thereby seriously
> flawed.
>
> Peter Kirk
>