Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] tenses; frequency

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] tenses; frequency
  • Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 06:39:15 +0100

Dear Peter

A very good example of my claim that when you start with four (presume four), you end up
with four, is the study of W. Th van Peursen (2004) "The Verbal system of the Hebrew Text of Ben Sira". On p. 7 he writes:

In the French edition Joüon had already indicated the importance of viewing the Hebrew conjugations together as a system. This means that 'the value of a verbal form is brought out by its contrast with the other forms. In Hebrew, as in any other language, verbal forms limit each other reciprocally'. Once we have acknowledged that the conjugations, like any other element of the language, are interrelated terms of a system, we should not search for the meaning of, for example, the perfect, but ask ourselves what in a given context where we find a perf. the meaning of the impf. or the ptcp. would be. (Italics his.)


The words above close the case: There are four conjugations! A view which in principle is similar is seen in the discourse analysis of Niccacci. He even presumes there are five different conjugations (WEQATAL being an independent conjugation). Further he claims that the combination of each of the five conjugations and the word order of a clause signals a particular meaning. Thus, the interpretation of the verbs in the clauses is basically based on theory, and that is the reason why I speak of circularity in connection with this method. And again, the case is closed: classical Hebrew has five conjugations!


When I started my studies of Hebrew I already had a background in the
natural sciences, and I was well versed in the principles of the philosophy
of science. Therefore, I did not just accept what my professors told me, but
I asked questions. Very soon I realized that the grammars were not able to
account for all the peculiarities of the Hebrew text, and I continued to ask
questions. Particularly was I sceptical to the claim that an element which seemed to be the conjunction WAW could turn the meaning of a verb form to the very opposite, because a parallel to this is lacking in any other language, including the Semitic ones.

The mentioned scepticism was one reason why I started the work with the dissertation, and the working hypothesis was that the traditional view is wrong. However, to have a working hypothesis does not close the case. To the contrary, a working hypothesis should be modified or even changed on the basis of data. My study has been and is strongly data-driven, because the basic part of it is the analysis of "all" the verbs of classical Hebrew as to their temporal reference and modality, and to a great extent as to their syntactical role (which forms occur before and after ech vereb, word order etc). The greatest part of the ten years used for the study was devoted to the mentioned verb analysis, which naturally is very time consuming. When I started, I did not know the final result. But my conclusion today is that the data strongly argue in favor of two conjugations.

Any researcher will be influenced by his or her beliefs, philosophy, and biases, A balanced scholar tries to curtail these as much as possible, but objective research is non-existent. However, to be sceptical to traditional explanations and to use a working hypothesis indicating that they probably are wrong does not close the case in favor of two conjugations. This is so because the existence of just two conjugations are not used as an axiom.



Best regards



Rolf Furuli

University of Oslo


----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
To: "Rolf Furuli" <furuli AT online.no>
Cc: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 10:46 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] tenses; frequency


On 09/08/2005 21:41, Rolf Furuli wrote:

... And a very important methodological question is this: Is an assumption
behind my research that Hebrew has a particular number of conjugations,
four, three, or two? For example, If we use the axiom that Hebrew has four
conjugations, then we end up with four. In addition to looking for
prejudice in the material, we need to be conscious of our own prejudices.
...


Indeed, Rolf. And this is a question which you have never answered
unambiguously concerning your own research. Do you assume any particular
number of conjugations? Did you begin by assuming or preferring any
particular number of them? If so, even if you formally abandoned such a
presupposition, did you retain any prejudice which might have caused you
to prefer an analysis which in fact corresponds with a previous
preference?

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








Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page