Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] b-hebrew Uncancellable meaning and Hebrew verbs

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] b-hebrew Uncancellable meaning and Hebrew verbs
  • Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 20:28:41 +0200

Dear Karl,

The final word is not said regarding Hebrew grammar and Hebrew verbs. We must keep in mind that there was no Hebrew grammar in the days of the Masoretes, and the grammatical suggestions that have been presented in the 19th, 20th, and 21st century all are built on induction-and induction can be tricky.

I do not think you should approach Hebrew grammar by asking whether I am right or wrong. In any case, you will not have a basis for any answer before you have carefully studied my dissertation and considered a great part of its examples. What bothers me most in many studies of Hebrew verbs is the arbitrariness of many of the conclusions. Things are stated without arguments, and the readers of grammars and textbooks simply have to believe the statements.

To come to grips with Hebrew grammar, I see two important paths to follow:

1) Consider for yourself whether you want to use a method where you have to account for a lot of factors at the same time (i.e., discourse analysis) or whether you want to study the smallest possible parts of the language, one at a time (semantic meaning versus conversational pragmatic implicature).

2) Try to get a clear understanding of the fundamental properties "deictic center," "event time," and "reference time" and how these can be applied to Hebrew verbs. To achieve that, I suggest that you study B. Comrie (1976) "Aspect" and (1985) "Tense". Here you will find a fundamental introduction that will be of great help. Comrie is seen as a linguistic authority. However, you should keep in mind that he has been severely criticized for his confusion of aspect and Aktionsart, or rather his lack of distinction between aspect and Aktionsart by numerous linguists. So after you have read Comrie, you need something by which you can adjust your ideas regarding the fundamental aspectual properties. This you can do by a careful study of the dissertation of M. Broman Olsen, that I previously have referred to. Her discussion of the fundamental properties are excellent, the best discussion I am aware of, and she points out the weaknesses of Comrie's discussion in a rather simple way. After this, you will probably have the right basis for the study of the Hebrew verb. The best way to learn the basics, as I see it, is first to read Comrie, and then throw away the 20-30% where he errs, and not just to Read Broman Olsen without having read Comrie.

There are some tense-less languages in the world, but no languages that are not concerned with time, past, present, and future. So, you cannot approach BH by throwing out time altogether. What you should do is to ascertain what it means that tense is the relationship between the deictic center and reference time, and that aspect is the relationship between event time and reference time, and then apply this to BH.


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo



Rolf:

Right now I cannot say that you are right or that you are wrong.

I question whether or not the Biblical Hebrew verbal conjugation
system had a time element at all. Even your modified aspectual system
still retains a time element. That's what I question. I could be
wrong.

As I previously admitted, before joining this list, I had given very
little thought to Biblical Hebrew grammar, concentrating on lexical
studies.

For example, before Randall Buth joined with his question, I had never
considered the grammar for simple, declarative statements concerning
ongoing events. As far as I have seen so far, he's right that the
Yiqtol is not used for those sentences. However, his conclusion that
the noun/pronoun plus participle is the default construction for those
sentences is belied by the finding that at least one such sentence has
that construction referring to the future and that the Qatal is often
used for present, ongoing events. The Yiqtol seems to be used for
optitative, subjunctive, interrogative and other such uses.

Like you, when I studied Hebrew in class, I was taught that the Hebrew
conjugation system necessarily includes time; whether tense as in
modern Israeli or aspect with its completed, point time action vs.
incompleted, continuing time action. One of the nice things about
being largely self-taught is that I don't have to argue with experts,
rather I can deal with the text directly without that distraction, but
it also means that I could be very wrong.

Thanks again for resending your definitions.

Karl W. Randolph.
_______________________________________________
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