Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] The mystery of vav-consequtive

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
  • To: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] The mystery of vav-consequtive
  • Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 01:41:30 +0100

On 28/04/2005 21:20, Rolf Furuli wrote:

Dear Peter,

I do not think we should forget Biblia Hebraica, because the issue raised by
Sperber is important: Do we get our understanding of Hebrew grammar from the
Hebrew text, or are we forcing our own wiew of Hebrew grammar on the Hebrew
text (a view we got from our teachers, who got it from their teachers, who
got it from their teachers...)?


OK, but see below...


... the opinions of leading
scholars have counted more than the witness of the biblical text itself.
Today scholars do not emend the text, but still The Grammar has the
priority. All kinds of strange explanations are given to passages
contradicting The Grammar, and no single study exists where *all* the verbs
that contradict the established grammar of four conjugations are discussed
and accounted for. So let us never forget Biblica Hebraica! It is a witness
in favor of the need of a scientific revolution (in the Kuhnian sense of the
concept) in connection with The Grammar.

Looking at things from the periphery, it seems to me that the scientific revolution has already taken place. The idea of emending the text to fit the supposed grammar has long been dropped. It is recognised (by most, if not by you with your insistence on uncancellable semantic distinctions) that real texts do not perfectly fit any grammar model. And many scholars have questioned the established view of the grammar. In my opinion, the reason why the established model of grammar has not been entirely overthrown is because there is ample evidence that it is in broad terms correct. I am sure the model needs some refinement, and many studies are in progress. But there is simply no evidence that it is entirely wrong, and plenty of evidence that your preferred two-component model is not an adequate explanation of the verbal system. (See the archives for this as I don't intend to justify it yet again.)

--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.4 - Release Date: 27/04/2005





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page