Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Zech 6:8

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Zech 6:8
  • Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:38:52 +1000


I very much agree (others won't, of course). In my view, Hebrew needs to be analysed in an of itself, with the categories the language itself distributionally reveals. Syntactic categories like "nominative" just don't figure in *Hebrew* syntax, at least at the diachronic stage represented in MT. Some even have trouble with "adjectives" in Hebrew (see, eg, D. J. Kamhi, "The Term tō'ar in Hebrew and Its Status as a Grammatical Category," BSOAS 34 (1971), 256-272; Joüon and Muraoka, §86).

In terms of general linguistics, even categories like "subject" and object" are not seen to be universal by some; see eg:

Dryer, Matthew S. "Are Grammatical Relations Universal?" Pages 115-143 in Essays on Language Function and Language Type: Dedicated to T. Givón. Edited by Joan Bybee, John Haiman, and Sandra A. Thompson. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1997.

Foley, William A. and Robert D. van Valin, Jr. "On the Viability of the Notion of 'Subject' in Universal Grammar." Berkeley Linguistics Society 3 (1977): 293-320.

I realise that some theoretical positions will not accept, nor tolerate, such a view.

Regards,
David Kummerow.



Thanks David for these titles;
Of course, I only object to the use of words like accusative etc.
because they are categories that designate usually case ending in
Greek, Latin and German, for example, and are independent of things
like object, subject, etc.
For example, in one semitic language I know of, the nominal predicate
in a verbal clause (for example "Xsubj was Ypred") has the accusative!
Which in Greek, Latin, etc. would be unthinkable.
So because of that reason I think descriptive grammars shouldn't
import stuff we don't need. For example, we could say that there's a
"dative" in a word like ??? lakhem, because it often functions in a
similar way as "you" in "we told you". But there is no dative at all,
there's just ? L and a suffix ?? KM. In theory there would be a
genitive, because in some other Semitic languages all prepositions
have what is called a genitive.
Yours,
Herman






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page