Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Alter's translation (Was: Daniel 6:27 (timeindefinite) II)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Herman Meester <crazymulgogi AT gmail.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Alter's translation (Was: Daniel 6:27 (timeindefinite) II)
  • Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:08:53 +0100

Karl,
If we do speak in terms of VSO or SVO etc., all that matters is statistics.
Statistically, Hebrew is VSO. It would be perfectly legitimate to
doubt that languages are to be categorised as "VSO", or that
statistics are relevant, but then the entire concept is gone and we
have to take a totally different method of describing syntax.
We could.
What we can *not* do however, is to say that "Hebrew can be both VSO
and SVO" or something like that, given the statistics that are simply
there.
Of course Hebrew allows for variation, but what we have to look at is
when this variation happens (in prose that is). It doesn't happen at
random. I am convinced that word order in prose is quite relevant to
syntax.
What did of course happen is that in later stages of Hebrew the
language turned into SVO, so that modern Hebrew is SVO.
Best regards,
herman

2005/11/24, Karl Randolph <kwrandolph AT email.com>:
> Herman:
>
> I have not made a formal study of Biblical Hebrew
> sentence structure, all I have done is to notice that it
> is more variable than what I was taught in school.
>
> I have read that there is at least one researcher who
> claims that Biblical Hebrew had a basically SVO structure
> instead of VSO. I'm not arguing either way.
>
> All I know is that both occur often enough that Genesis 1:2
> can be read as a legitimate, stand-alone sentence.
>
> Karl W. Randolph.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "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
>
>
> --
> ___________________________________________________
> Play 100s of games for FREE! http://games.mail.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page