Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

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.)