Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

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.