Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] How does biblical Hebrew describe a present event?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] How does biblical Hebrew describe a present event?
  • Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 16:12:00 +0200

Dear James,

Thank you for your observations from computer science. I agree with you that it would have been an advantage if other scholars had studied the same material on the basis of the same method as I used. For several years before I started with Semitic and Classical languages I studied different subjects in the natural sciences, and I found that the methodology I used in biology, biochemistry and historical geology were fine. I am very much in line with Karl Popper as far as the Philosophy of science is concerned, and the methodology of the natural sciences clearly influenced me in the method I chose in my study of Hebrew verbs.

In my dissertation I present a completely new explanation (definition) of both the finite and infinite forms in classical Hebrew. And I claim that on the basis of these definitions all the uses and functions of the verbs in the Tanakh can be explained or accounted for without exceptions. This is a very bold claim that fly in the face of almost all previous Hebrew scholars. And if the definitions really have such a great explanatory power, there may be two reasons for this. Either the explanations are correct, or they are too vague. Vagueness destroys the scientific nature of any theory or explanation. Because, if anything can be explained by a theory, it actually explains nothing.

One important test of vagueness versus correctness is falsifiability. In other words, would it be possible to think of (define) particular uses of particular verbs or constructions or verb clauses that, if such were found, they would falsify my conclusions and show that they were wrong? This is possible in the natural sciences, but is it possible in a dead language when we lack informants? I discuss this issue in the last chapter of my dissertation, and here I show that my conclusions regarding the prefix forms (YIQTOL, WAYYIQTOL, and WEYIQTOL) really are falsifiable, but that is not the case with the suffix forms (QATAL and WEQATAL). I do not view the prefix forms and suffix forms as equivipollent ("mutually exclusive"), but rather as privative. This means that some characteristics are common to both groups, and others are different or mutually exclusive. But still, when the conclusions regarding one group can be falsified, it has a positive influence on the other group as well. Therefore I think that my conclusions has a firm basis.


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo






I haven't analysed all the verb forms as Rolf Furuli has but as a computer scientist I can offer my 2p's worth. Everything Rolf says about his method is empirically correct and cannot be ignored. The more variables you throw into a problem the less certain you can be of your conclusions. This is especially more so with biblical hebrew where our data set is so small.

This is similar to a simulation problem I am currently working on. I am modelling the reactions in human cell on a super computer. If you raise the amount of protein x the amount of protein y may also increase. But if you raise the amount of protein v and protein x the amount of protein y may decrease. This is because protein v is an inhibitor of protein y. This is just a quick example to show the effect of throwing more varibles into the equation and how difficult it can be to extract rules that can be trusted.

I am not saying that I automatically agree with all of Rolf's conclusions. I am just saying that his method is scientifically sound. The only thing it probably lacks is that he was the sole analyser of the verb forms. The study would have more worth if many hebraists performed the same tests and statistics were averaged. As it stands we can only take his word for it.

I would suggest that anyone with doubts should select a sample text and apply Rolf's method and gather their own statistics. While discrepancies are to be expected I would suspect that there would not be any large variations from Rolf's results.

James Christian

--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page