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: Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>
  • To: Herman Meester <crazymulgogi AT gmail.com>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Alter's translation (Was: Daniel 6:27 (timeindefinite) II)
  • Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:58:09 +0000

On 24/11/2005 09:08, Herman Meester wrote:

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. ...


Herman, while I am not up with the details of how this is described by modern linguists, from what I remember it is decided not just on the basis of statistics (which can easily be biased especially in a corpus which makes wide use of a particular construction) but on what is fundamental to the syntax of the language. Thus German (is Dutch similar?) is often considered to be SOV on the basis that this order in subordinate clauses is more fundamental, although specific corpora might have a predominance of SVO main clauses - actually with the verb moved forward to the second slot in the sentence whether or not that is the subject. So, I know some have argued that biblical Hebrew is fundamentally SVO and VSO type sentences like those with WAYYIQTOL are less fundamental. I don't think they are right, but the argument against that is not simply from counting clauses in the Bible.

--
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