Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>]

All,

The thrust of this sly theological-ideological ruse of "biblical  
Hebrew" being a "dead language" is transparent. For If it so, then  
Isaac Fried and millions of people like him who are spending their  
lives studying the Hebrew bible, thinking that they understand what  
they are reading, are in fact in grave denial. All these years they  
were riding a dead horse and getting nowhere. They were thinking they  
were making progress, but it was only the wind blowing in their  
ears.  Indeed: "In the study of a dead language we can never draw a  
conclusion and believe that this is the final word, this is the  
truth". THIS IS THE TRUTH! Moreover, "We never reach a final stage in  
the study of a dead language." Harken writers on living languages,  
you are wasting your time, FINAL STAGE is nearly come.

I am really alarmed. All those years I approached "a dead language  
without a linguistic theory and several assumptions, for example,  
that the dead language behaved in a way similar to living languages."  
And, of course, "Any approach to the verbal system of a dead language  
must entail subjective judgements". And, of course, "No  
interpretation (INTERPRETATION!) of a dead language is final, there  
certainly are alternative interpretations. The good advice to the  
student is to look at the methodologies behind the interpretations."

But what if the (arbitrary) assumption "that the dead language  
behaved in a way similar to living languages" is wrong, and said  
methodologies futile?! By the way, is JAE (Jane Austen English)  
likewise a dead language?

Also, dear members, don't forget that this study "requires a  
knowledge of the minds of dead prophets." But what about the minds, I  
may ask, of living prophets, such as that of our dear neighbor Mr.  
Golem?

But there is a ray hope shining out of the north (KI MI-TZAFON  
TIPATAX HA-TOVA). A certain Rolf Furuli, lecturer of Semitic  
languages at the university of Oslo, devised (one of?) "different  
approaches"  by the aid of which "we can try to come as close [to]  
[the?] the correct understanding as possible" of a sacred book  
written, alas, in a "dead language". THE CORRECT UNDERSTANDING! Not  
entirely, "BH" being after all a "dead language", but we are still  
invited to TRY and "approach" the truth AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE!

Mind you.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Mar 24, 2007, at 3:04 AM, Rolf Furuli wrote:

> Dear Harold,
>
> In the study of a dead language we can never draw a conclusion and  
> believe
> that this is the final word, this is the truth. But by the use of  
> different
> approaches we can try to come as close the the correct  
> understanding as
> possible. I have also applied my model to New Testament Greek,  
> although I
> have not yet analysed all the verbs of the NT. You are correct in your
> observations that the aorist may have non-pastreference - it can  
> even has
> future reference (e.g., Jude 1:14). My  conclusion so far is that  
> past tense
> is not a  part of the aorist, but it represents the perfective  
> aspect. I
> take the imperfect as as past tense + the imperfective aspect,  
> present as
> the imperfective aspect, and future as future tense.
>
>
>
>
> .
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Harold Holmyard" <hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net>
> To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2007 1:02 AM
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Question for Rolf on the JW outlook on the  
> Hebrew
>
>
> > Dear Rolf,
> > > When I ask the question: "Is past tense an uncancelable part of the
> > > WAYYIQTOL form?," I seek a scrupulous distinction between  
> > > semantics and
> > > pragmatics when I answer the question, and I use "scrupulous" as  
> > > defined
> > > by
> > > Websters.
> > HH: What you are seeking for seems unrealistic. An essential idea  
> > of the
> > Greek aorist is that it is a preterite; it expresses past meaning.  
> > But
> > that is not always the case. Sometimes the aorist can be used in
> > contexts which indicate a present meaning. And it can be used in
> > contexts which imply a future meaning. I was just reading about it:
> >
> > http://books.google.com/books?id=BExv_MTYrZkC&dq=uses+of+aorist 
> > +Greek&pg=PA22&ots=gXedHFoi0S&sig=Xpoo7X4iOYetqTTFLw0tPx4R2u0&prev=ht 
> > tp://www.google.com/search%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3Duses%2Bof%2Baorist% 
> > 2BGreek%26btnG%3DGoogle% 
> > 2BSearch&sa=X&oi=print&ct=result&cd=2#PPA16-IA4,M1
> >
> >
> > Language is not as rigid as you seem to propose.
>
> RF
> I think you misunderstand my position here.
>
> > Yours,
> > Harold Holmyard
> > _______________________________________________
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rolf Furuli
> University of Oslo
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew