Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Dave Washburn <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

On Thursday 24 November 2005 18:30, David Kummerow 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.
> > 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.
>
> But we could argue that verbal clauses are V-S and verbless clauses are
> S-Pred. See:
>
> Buth, Randall. "Word Order in the Verbless Clause: A
> Generative-Functional Approach." Pages 79-108 in The Verbless Clause in
> Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Approaches. Edited by Cynthia L. Miller.
> Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic 1. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns,
> 1999.
>
> Perhaps the competing motivations of the two different clause types were
> resolved in the direction of the verbless S-Pred as in later Hebrew. The
> competition would certainly have become greater as the participle was
> allowed a position in the verbal paradigm as a present tense.
>
> Nevertheless, although the VS(O) view of the verbal clauses is by far
> the majority view, others do hold to SV(O) as the unmarked order in the
> verbal clause:
[snip]

I'm one of them.  I find it amusing that anyone uses a statistical argument 
for a base order of VSO, because the statistics are heavily skewed by the 
frequency of the wayyiqtol, which just about everyone agrees is a converted 
(i.e. secondary, not basal) form.  Many go so far as to indicate that one of 
the features of its formation is movement to the front of the clause.  The 
question is, movement from where?  Where was it before it moved?  So the 
statistical argument for VSO seems more than a bit self-defeating because it 
is built on a form that is not a base one, but is built from something else.

-- 
Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
"Maybe I'll trade it for a new hat."