Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Question for Rolf on the JW outlook on the Hebrew

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>
  • To: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Question for Rolf on the JW outlook on the Hebrew
  • Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 22:06:39 -0400

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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page