Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Herman Meester <crazymulgogi AT gmail.com>]

Dear Karl,
Hebrew being VSO doesn't mean it's the only possible order, just that
it's the basic order. It's simply a matter of statistics. As you in a
way admitted, we cannot use poetic clauses to describe Hebrew syntax.
Could you, then, produce clear prose clauses where the *basic* order
of BH seems not to be VSO?

Do you mean the reason to open a clause with a verb is usually its
prefix? Even then, the result is usually VSO. You can hardly claim
that inside the imperfect there is a pronoun.

What I would most like to hear from you is what you think of the clear
parrallel in Gen 2,4-7.
Regards
Herman

2005/11/23, Karl Randolph <kwrandolph AT email.com>:
> Herman:
>
> You are new here, so you don't know my background. I have read Tanakh so 
> many times, cover to cover, that I have lost count. I have learned that 
> much of what I was taught at school when I studied Hebrew in class was 
> wrong.
>
> One of those is the concept that Biblical Hebrew was VSO. While reading 
> Tanakh I found many verses SVO, and even some OSV or OVS or some other 
> interesting variation. Yes, many of those are in the poetic sections, but 
> enough found in the prose sections that the number one reason to find the 
> verb opening a sentence is where the verb has prefixes and suffixes 
> relating to personal pronouns. Importance is more important than 
> syntactical rules.
>
> In short, Genesis 1:2 records a perfectly correct complete short sentence 
> according to Biblical Hebrew usage.
>
> As far as "tense" is concerned, there were rather informative and drawn out 
> discussions with Dr. Furuli in particular showing how that is not a correct 
> way to analyse Hebrew verbal usage. While I have not done the statistical 
> analysis that he has done, my gut reaction from experience backs him up.
>
> Alter is asking us to accept a one time use of the B- prefix that is 
> different from all other uses, a practice that I reject without further 
> justification. Exceptions to a rule are not good data for understanding 
> rules, especially when only a few recognized that exception that many 
> others claim is a mishandling of the data.
>
> In closing, Alter's "translation" is recognized by many as a mistranslation.
>
> Karl W. Randolph.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Herman Meester" <crazymulgogi AT gmail.com>
> > Karl,
> > To your question where the "when" comes from: I think I explained that
> > already, but I'll clarify:
> > if we have "in-beginning (of)", we are dealing with a point in time,
> > or at least the beginning of time itself; or we have to assume there
> > are timeless beginnings.
> > If we say "when... began", we have exactly the same thing: a point in
> > time. I call that a literal translation, because I believe that the
> > syntax a one language doesn't always follow the syntax of another. In
> > your way of thinking, you cannot "literally" translate most relative
> > clauses with asher, or should I say, hardly any sentence of the Hebrew
> > Bible.
> >
> > About your second point, I'm sorry Karl, but I must say your
> > understanding of the word we/wa "and" is a little bit odd. We/wa is
> > not about subordination at all, only word order, the kind of tense or
> > mode employed, and possibly words like we/wa *combined with* a certain
> > structure indicates subordination. How can you think that I say "if we
> > have two wayyiqtol clauses, the first is subordinate to the second"
> > just because I say that in Gen 1 we have an example of a subordinate
> > clause?
> > With all due respect, you may disagree with a.o. Alters and
> > ArtScroll's idea about Gen1, but if you want to disqualify it, first
> > try to take a look at word order, tense and mode use, in short,
> > syntax.
> > For example, I hope you realise that at least verse 2 is not a short
> > main clause: this is impossible, because of word order: והארץ
> > (subject) is put first, but BH is VSO. We therefore have to do with a
> > circumstantial clause. Here WE(ha-aretz) has nothing do with one event
> > following up on another event.
> > The word we/wa doesn't work like English "and" at all.
> > Yours,
> > Herman
>
> --
> ___________________________________________________
> Play 100s of games for FREE! http://games.mail.com/
>
>