Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Use and Misuse of Waw in Verb Tenses

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Use and Misuse of Waw in Verb Tenses
  • Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 15:04:31 +0200

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?






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page