Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Dave,

I have never seen a better presentation of the difference between 
semantics and pragmatics than the study of Mari Broman Olsen, and I am 
indebted to her for several of the linguistic principles I use in my 
model.  Yet, she uses three assumptions underpinning her investigation, 
and one is as follows: "lexical and grammatical aspect represents sets 
of univesal semantic oppositions." This seems to accord well with 
Chomsky (whose system I know you have used), but this principle would 
destroy any attempt to come to grips with Hebrew aspects, because it 
presumes that Hebrew aspects are similar to English aspects.

W. Th van Peursen has published an excellent study of Ben Sira (2004. 
"The Verbal System in the Hebrew Text of Ben Sira". Leiden:Brill.  He 
uses a linguistic model which already was used by Joüon in his grammar 
of 1923.  This model states that Hebrew verbs constitute a system where 
the meaning of one form can be found by contrasting it to other forms.  
The model assumes that this system consists of four different 
conjugations that should be contrasted, and when you start with four, 
you end up with four.  So this model prevents a reasearcher from making 
a real test of the number of conjugations in Hebrew, since the number is 
given in the model.

No scholar has influenced modern Bible translation theory so much as E. 
Nida.  However, he took Chomsky's "deep structures" as a point of 
departure (such structures have never been proved) and broke down the 
Biblical clauses into "kernels," from which the translation should be 
made.  This system has in my view had a bad influence on modern Bible 
translation and has caused free interpretations and even distortions to 
come into the text of modern translations.

I have striven hard to exclude as much as possible of preconceived ideas 
from my study of Hebrew verbs, and my model is very simple: 1)  I assume 
that the Semites of old used their language (verbs, substantives, 
adjectives etc.) in a similar way as modern people do, and 2) I assume 
that some parts of the Hebrew language will have the same meaning in any 
context.


Best regards

Rolf Furuli

University of Oslo

Dave Washburn wrote:

> On Friday 17 September 2004 01:59, Rolf Furuli wrote:
>  
>
> > Dear
> >
> > Clay Bartholomew,
> >
> > I am skeptical of using linguistic models such as cognitive grammar,
> > montague grammar, generative grammar etc. in studies of of a dead language,
> > since they may disturb the material under study. 
> >    
> [snip] 
>
> Could you explain what you mean by this?
>
>