Biblical Hebrew Forum

[David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>]

Hi Rolf,

Sorry that I seemed to sidestep your question regarding vowels; that was
not my intention. Since I'm low on time, I thought it was best just to
refer to stuff in print as it's all there said better than I can do in a
short post.

Anyway, the debate centres around whether Tiberian Hebrew represents a
five or seven quality system. Churchyard in his dissertation defends the
five vowels, but Khan, Blau (not his grammar though, but I'd have to
double-check), Revell, Garr, etc argue for a seven quality system.

The difference between having five vowels or seven is the place of
pathah, qamets, tsere, and segol. Traditionally, at least since Kimhi I
think, the contrast has been seen to be one of phonemic length - thus a
five vowel system.

Khan is very interesting to read as he incorporates evidence regarding
Tiberian pronuciation from the early manuscripts displaying Hebrew and
Arabic orthography (in which length is can be marked not only by vowels).

I hope this is enough.

Gotta go, but a couple more comments below.




> Dear David,
> Please see below.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Kummerow" <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
> To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 10:57 AM
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Hebrew grammar, (was Zech 6:8)
>
>
>
>  >>
>  >> Hi Rolf,
>  >>
>  >> I can't take too much time as I'm very busy at the moment - and I don't
>  >> want to get involved in another of those forays disputing whether 
> the BH
>  >> verbal system is tense-, aspect-, or mood-prominent! Anyway, some of my
>  >> thoughts below.
>
>
> I respect your wish not to discuss the possible TAM of classical Hebrew.
> This was not my intention, but since Herman said he did not like the term
> "tense" applied to Hebrew, and you said the term was OK with you. I wanted
> to clarify the terminology.
>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >
>  >>>> Dear David,
>  >>>> Allow me to ask a few questions.
>  >>>>
>  >>>> ----- Original Message -----
>  >>>> From: "David Kummerow" <farmerjoeblo at hotmail.com>
>  >>>> To: "Herman Meester" <crazymulgogi at gmail.com>; <b-hebrew at
>  >>>> lists.ibiblio.org>
>  >>>> Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 5:04 AM
>  >>>> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Zech 6:8
>  >>>>
>  >>>>
>  >>>>  >
>  >>>>  > Gday Herman.
>  >>>>  >
>  >>>>  > In my view, "tenses" are an OK starting point with the BH verbal
>  >>>> system
>  >>>>  > in that in my view the verbal forms are prototypically used to 
> make
>  >>>>  > tense distinctions. However, with a system of only a few forms 
> in a
>  >>>>  > world in which more semantic distinctions than tense are 
> necessary, of
>  >>>>  > course the verbal forms can be, and are, used to make aspectual
>  >>>>  > distinctions: perfective, imperfective, etc.
>  >>>>
>  >>>> Do you by "tense" mean "grammaticalized location in time" or just
>  >>>> "temporal
>  >>>> reference"?
>  >
>  >>
>  >> Sort of. Even though BH only has a few forms, the necessary semantic
>  >> distinctions needed in communication still falls to the few forms. In
>  >> this way, I take it that both tense and aspect are grammaticalised in
>  >> Hebrew, along the lines of Randall Buth's position (although I am not
>  >> convinced that weqatal is a separate form to qatal). Neither tense-only
>  >> or aspect-only view is sufficient for BH. Tense can be neutralised for
>  >> the expression aspect in the future (as the "aspectual" position will
>  >> demonstrate; but neither is the aspectal view sufficient in that it 
> does
>  >> not answer why qatal is both statistically dominant and unmarked in the
>  >> expression of anterior in the clause types identified in Zevit's
>  >> monograph as well as the data of qatal being used as past 
> non-perfective.
>  >>
>  >> But then I'm not sure of what you're driving at in your distinction
>  >> between "grammaticalized location in time" and "temporal reference". If
>  >> you're question is to determine whether I am making a mistake on the
>  >> view that sematics involves non-cancelability and pragmatics involves
>  >> cancelability, I simply don't buy the rigid distinction (I thus agree
>  >> with Peter Kirk).
>
>
> According to B. Comrie (1985) "Tense" pp. vii, 9 is defined as
> "grammaticalized expression of location in time".  To accept this does not
> require that one accepts Broman Olsen?s distinction between "semantic
> meaning" and "conversational pragmatic implicature". But it indicates that
> when an author uses "temporal reference" s/he does not take any standpoint
> as to whether it is the context or the verb form that signals the time of
> the verb to the audience. But when "tense" is used according to Comrie?s
> definition (and
> I think that few linguists would disagree with him), it means that the time
> is an intrinsic part of the verb form itself. So when you used the term
> "tense" and at the same time said that tense "can be neutralised in certain
> constructions" it made me wonder what you meant by "tense".

The Hebrew verbs are really very difficult - hence all the debate over
many years. Because both tense and aspect appear to be signalled by the
verb forms, each of which may be neutralised in various constructions,
and am reluctant to come down hard-and-fast and say Hebrew
grammaticalises location in time as this appears to be not the only
thing and using those words gives the impression that it is. But even in
saying this, I would argue that the prototypical use of each of the
forms is used to make tense distinctions.



>  >>
>
> snip
>
>
>  >>>>
>  >>>> What does it mean "to work with a seven vowel system"?
>  >
>  >>
>  >> Have a look at, eg:
>  >>
>  >> Khan, Geoffrey. "Tiberian Hebrew Phonology." Pages 85-102 in 
> Phonologies
>  >> of Asia and Africa (Including the Caucasus): Volume 1. Edited by Peter
>  >> T. Daniels. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1997.
>  >>
>  >> Khan, Geoffrey. "Vowel Length and Syllable Structure in the Tiberian
>  >> Tradition of Biblical Hebrew." Journal of Semitic Studies 32 (1987):
>  >> 23-82
>
>
> It is not a good way to answer a question to refer to other sources than
> yourself.  You said, " I don't
> know of any grammar that has yet to work with a seven vowel system, even
> though this view has become pretty much the consensus outside the
> grammars. As such, we still await a grammar written with this view." The
> purpose of b-hebrew is to exchange views regarding the Hebrew language and
> Hebrew grammer. If a view or a criticism is presented, it is the polite way
> to answer sincere questions regarding what one has written. If the Hebrew
> vowels are referred to, I simply do not understand how grammars such as
> Jo?on/Muraoka and van der Merwe et al. have failed to work with the Hebrew
> vowel system.
>
>
>
>  >> Regards,
>  >> David Kummerow.
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
> Rolf Furuli
> University of Oslo

Thansks,
David Kummerow.