Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - [b-hebrew] Re: Hebrew "Nominative"

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "David Kummerow" <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [b-hebrew] Re: Hebrew "Nominative"
  • Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 11:01:22 +1000


Dear Clay,

Personally, I think Waltke and O'Connor and Jouon and Muraoka have unfortunately used vague linguistics. I don't think they have escaped the vague use of the (catch-all) term "emphasis", despite Muraoka's _Emphatic Words and Structures in Biblical Hebrew_ where "emphasis" was given a psychological definition (see esp. pp. 2, 48). Both works rely heavily on this monograph (note the repeated footnoting in W-O of this work). However, van der Merwe says, "[Muraoka's] concentration on the 'psychological' factors and the item's emphasized' resulted in his neglecting to describe the sematic and discourse-pragmatic considerations involved" (C.H.J. van der Merwe, _The Old Hebrew Particle gam: A Syntactic-Semantic Description of gam in Gn-2Kn [ATS 34; St. Ottilien: EOS Verlag, 1990], 39).

You might like to read the following documents where a much better treatment regarding this matter of "emphasis" is provided, particuarly because semantics and discourse-pragmatics are featured. Unfortunately, it is this type of non-vague linguistics which is yet to find its way into the reference grammars.

http://www.uwm.edu/%7Erdholmst/FrontingSBLMW2000.pdf

http://www.uwm.edu/%7Erdholmst/ShimasakiFocus.pdf

http://www.uwm.edu/%7Erdholmst/ProverbsSBL2003.pdf


If correct, this would show that the introduction of linguistics of this sort does have benifit for BH studies. There is a benifit exegetically for "Joe Seminarian".

Regards,

David Kummerow.


From: "C. Stirling Bartholomew" <jacksonpollock AT earthlink.net>
To: David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>,<b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Re: Hebrew "Nominative"
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 10:40:31 -0700

On 9/28/04 4:26 PM, "David Kummerow" <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com> wrote:

> Consequently, these clauses are best viewed as having a
> detached or pendens phrase; and depending on whose theory you want to run
> with, the phrase is either topicalised, focused or contasted (alternatively
> kontrasted).
>
> Your examples might then translate into Engish as:
>
> "As for Esau, he is Edom" and "As for Yahweh, he is God".
>
> What do you make of this?

David,

Using what was at hand, I read Waltke/O'Conner (16.3.1-3). What strikes me
about all of this is how incomprehensible it would be to a third year
seminary student. When you start talking about focus or topic/comment you
are activating a cognitive framework which is inaccessible to 95% of
students who might have Waltke/O'Conner as their textbook for second year
Hebrew.

When you say "focus" to Joe Seminarian he will probably think something like
emphasis, which is hardly an adequate understanding of what "focus" means.
The introduction of linguistics into the study of BH poses a problem which
isn't really solved by attaching a glossary to the grammar. It takes more
than a glossary to unpack the analytical models that give meaning to these
terms.

Joe Seminarian's inability to digest Muraoka, Waltke/O'Conner, has brought
us *Arnold & Choi (2003), where we find old familiar notions like "emphasis"
and "pleonasm" cropping up in the discussion of verbless clauses and
pronouns. It isn't that the authors don't know better, they cite extensively
from the reference grammars. I suspect this is driven by pragmatic
considerations.

Thanks for all the discussion.


greetings,
Clay Bartholomew

*A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax  (ISBN:0521533481)
Arnold, Bill T.; Choi, John H. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003




_________________________________________________________________
Discover how everyone & everything in our world's connected: http://www.onebigvillage.com.au?&obv1=hotmail





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page