Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Dave Washburn <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

On Thursday 29 May 2003 16:14, Bill Rea wrote:
> Dave wrote:-
>
> >>>We've been down this road before, and the upside-down methodology is
> >>>the one that assumes, a priori, that the form most common *within the
> >>>limited and specialized corpus that has come down to us,* is the most
> >>>fundamental one.
>
> and I said:-
>
> >> If your assertion is correct then the question become unaswerable.
> >> To decide whether Hebrew is VSO or SVO requires evidence. If the
> >> only evidence we have is deemed an unreliable witness then we are
> >> stuck.
>
> And Dave replied:-
>
> >But since that's not what I said, we're unstuck, I guess.
>
> How so? If you can't assume "the form most common *within the limited
> and specialized corpus that has come down to us,* is the most
> fundamental one.", then how do you decide? It looks to me like you are
> discounting the only witness we have because it is specialised and
> non-representative.  I'm not questioning your right or reasons for
> doing so. No one doubts it is specialised, whether it is not
> representative of the spoken language seems to me another unanswerable
> question.  But, then, where are you going get the evidence we need to
> know the fundamental form is SVO and not VSO? Perhaps we should pose a
> different question which may be answered -- within "the limited and
> specialized corpus that has come down to us", is Hebrew VSO or SVO?
> But looking back at the posts by Dale Wheeler and Liz, perhaps agreement
> can't be reached on that question either.

Once again, that's not what I said.  In fact I never used the term 
"non-representative."  I never addressed that subject at all.  I said that 
counting occurrences within a specialized corpus like the OT, where the prose 
sections tend to focus on past narrative, will not tell us what the basal 
form of the Hebrew verb was.  We have to use other criteria.  In the case of 
the Hebrew verbal system, it seems clear that the WA. of the waw-consecutive 
forms is an affix of some kind, and in general affixes indicate a departure 
from the basal form.  If someone wants to argue that it's not an affix at 
all, they're welcome to.  But they have to explain the phonetic changes, the 
shifts in accent, the well-known shortening in some wayyiqtol cases, and all 
the rest, in a way that accounts for changes in both form and force when the 
WA. is dropped or whatever happens to it.  It's clear that I'm talking over 
some heads here, and it's getting frustrating and I don't want to get put on 
moderated posting again :-) so I think I'm going to drop out of this thread.

-- 
Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur