Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Uri Hurwitz <uhurwitz AT yahoo.com>]

Dave Washburn <dwashbur AT nyx.net> wrote:
"..... But as you may have gathered from this 
board, the perfect/imperfect thing doesn't exactly work, either. We're 
fairly sure that BH isn't tensed, but it doesn't really seem to be aspectual, 
either. That's why many of us are engaged in ongoing research, trying to 
figure out exactly what it is (at the moment, we can only tell you what it 
isn't). "

-- Now the mystery really deepens: if the above is correct, how could this 
language have been in use for thousands of years, been  translated to 
practically every written language; how could commentators delude themselves 
they understaood it  -- since the the days of the Dead Sea Scrolls  at least, 
if its very basic verbal system defies comprehension?

  Perhaps it is simply the difference  between the use of a language on the 
one hand, and the  grammatical tools  that are employed to analyze it, tools 
that by their nature are  constructs and abstractions?

  Uri



                
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 The all-new My Yahoo! – What will yours do?
>From dwashbur AT nyx.net  Fri Nov 26 00:37:21 2004
Return-Path: <dwashbur AT nyx.net>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from S3.cableone.net (smtp3.cableone.net [24.116.0.229])
        by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D47B74C005
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 00:37:20 -0500 
(EST)
Received: from [192.168.0.103] (unverified [69.92.35.57]) 
        by S3.cableone.net (CableOne SMTP Service S3) with ESMTP id 2372046 
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 22:44:21 -0700
From: Dave Washburn <dwashbur AT nyx.net>
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] A Jewish perspective on reading biblical hebrew
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 22:37:15 -0700
User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2
References: <20041126021531.55902.qmail AT web51610.mail.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <20041126021531.55902.qmail AT web51610.mail.yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <200411252237.15390.dwashbur AT nyx.net>
X-Abuse-Info: Send abuse complaints to abuse AT cableone.net
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Hebrew Bible List <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 05:37:21 -0000

On Thursday 25 November 2004 19:15, Uri Hurwitz wrote:
> Dave Washburn <dwashbur AT nyx.net> wrote:
> "..... But as you may have gathered from this
> board, the perfect/imperfect thing doesn't exactly work, either. We're
> fairly sure that BH isn't tensed, but it doesn't really seem to be
> aspectual, either. That's why many of us are engaged in ongoing research,
> trying to figure out exactly what it is (at the moment, we can only tell
> you what it isn't). "
>
> -- Now the mystery really deepens: if the above is correct, how could this
> language have been in use for thousands of years, been  translated to
> practically every written language; how could commentators delude
> themselves they understaood it  -- since the the days of the Dead Sea
> Scrolls  at least, if its very basic verbal system defies comprehension?

Sarcasm doesn't get us anywhere.  If you have it all figured out, let's hear 
it.  We know what doesn't work.  Feel free to show us what does work - for 
every instance, not just a pet few that seem to support a pet theory.  

And of course, our problem here in the 21st century is that the language in 
its Tanak form died out nearly 2,000 years ago.  

As for translations, they are approximate and frequently don't agree with 
each 
other for those very reasons.  

Oh yes, and the amazing diversity of opinions in the commentaries hardly 
supports the idea that anybody really understands it completely.  So thanks 
for making my point.

[snip]

-- 
Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
"No good.  Hit on head."   -Gronk