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: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] The mystery of vav-consequtive
  • Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 12:08:29 +0200

Dear Peter,

I do not intend to continue a discussion of the Hebrew verb, but I would like to say a littel more about The Grammar. It is true that the text is no longer emended, but the Grammar has still priority. If you read Thomas Kuhn, the historian of science, you will see that we are very far from having a scientific revolution as long as The Grammar has priority. By this i mean the following:

There are five graphically different groups of verbs in the MT: YIQTOL, WAYYIQTOL, WEYIQTOL, QATAL, AND QATAL. The Grammar tells us that there are four different groups semantically speaking: YIQTOL/WEYIQTOL, WAYYIQTOL, QATAL, and WEQATAL. Those who have studied the YIQTOLs and the WEYIQTOLs in detail realize that the *functions* of YIQTOL and WEYIQTOL are very different. So, at the outset there is arbitrariness in The Grammar, because two groups which are both graphically different and functionally different are taken as one group with the same semantic meaning. Further, arbitrariness is found in the view of the WEQATALs (QATAL+prefixed WAW) because this group that is graphically similar, is viewed as consisting of two groups of verbs with different semantic meaning. (Niccacci is "wonderfully" consistent, because he treats the WEYIQTOLs as a group distinct from the YIQTOLs and treat all WEQATALs as one group.) This is The Grammar that has priority over the Hebrew text.
As long as you start a study of the Hebrew verbal system *assuming* that there are four conjugations, you let The Grammar have priority, and you are very far from being a scientific revolutionary in the Kuhnian sense. I see one way to proceed to refrain from giving The Grammar priority:

1. Start your study with the assumption that classical Hebrew has at least two different conjugations (a prefix-conjugation and a suffix-conjugation, which can be seen in the DSS), possibly three or four. (This approach alone frees you from the straitjacket of The Grammar.)

2. Study *all* the finite and infinite verbs of the Hebrew corpus (MT, DSS, Ben Sira, and the Inscriptions) on the basis of the relationship between event time, reference time, and the deictic center, and see how many different groups og finite verbs that emerge. (This does not necessarily make you a revolutionary, but it shows you are a good scientist.)

3. Study the material in order to find the *meaning* of the different verb forms, and not just their *functions*. (To ascribe just one or two functions to YIQTOL, WAYYIQTOL, QATAL, AND WEQATAL is completely impossible. Function can be a fine tool for teaching students the language, but cannot account for the Hebrew verbal system.)


Best regards

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo

Peter Kirk wrote:

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.)






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page