Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Dave Washburn <davidlwashburn AT gmail.com>]

On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 9:09 PM, K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks, Dave:
>
> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 8:46 PM, Dave Washburn 
> <davidlwashburn AT gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 8:27 PM, K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Dave:
>> >
>> > Thanks.
>> >
>> > On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Dave Washburn <
>> davidlwashburn AT gmail.com>wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> Explanatory adequacy means looking not just at *what* happens in language,
>> but how and why. Descriptive linguistics says that 1) is declarative and
>> 2)
>> is interrogative.
>>
>> 1) He goes to the market
>> 2) Does he go to the market?
>>
>> Explanatory linguistics says that 1) is the base form of an English
>> clause,
>> while 2) is formed by moving the subject to second position and inserting
>> the auxiliary verb. Explanatory methods go on to try and sort out the
>> mechanisms that produce this change, and develop mechanisms that (more or
>> less) predict what the behavior will be in other clauses. It doesn't just
>> lay out a list of descriptions, it searches for the rules behind what we
>> observe.
>>
>
> I thought this was descriptive linguistics, in that one cannot adequately
> describe a language apart from recognizing such patterns of language use.
>

Correct, but the question is one of adequacy. The difference between
descriptive adequacy and explanatory adequacy is that a theory with
descriptive adequacy can only do just that, describe. Explanatory adequacy
can not only describe, it can predict the structure and form of a clause by
analyzing WHY existing clauses behave the way they do. I'm probably not
doing a very good job of explaining it (no pun intended).


>
>
>>
>> Honestly, I wouldn't expect you to be up on most of this stuff, because
>> your focus is mainly lexicography. The approaches I mentioned all deal
>> more
>> with syntax. Two very different animals!
>>
>
> Actually, both work together.
>
>
To a degree, yes. But I maintain a strict separation between syntax and
semantics as well. I can say "Would you hand me the flurp?" and the average
person will at least begin to look around for an instant before they
realize they have no idea what a flurp is. Why? Because the statement is
syntactically well-formed and they processed it. But if I say, "Me flurp
the hand you would?" they will stare at me as if I have two heads, because
their syntactic region can't even begin to process that. I use this
separation to try and sort out the syntax of biblical Hebrew.

More than that, though, I believe that words mean what they mean because a
society chooses to use them that way. This is why I'm always leery of
etymological arguments, because the etymology of a word may or may not have
any bearing on its current meaning. A good example is the word "breakfast."
Historically and etymologically, it refers to the first meal of the day,
generally taken in the morning  after waking. Thanks to a certain
restaurant chain and other influences, it has come to refer to a certain
group of foods, regardless of the time of day. This is why one of my
favorite restaurants can  advertise "breakfast served all day." The set of
foods now regarded as "breakfast" fare has little, if anything, to do with
the word's background; its meaning changed as a result of good marketing.

I see this happening with words in every language that I know; usage varies
and there is often no rhyme or reason for the direction that a particular
word's usage goes. I don't see the same happening with syntax;
well-formedness has  to follow certain perceivable patterns in order for
our language centers to process it. That's part of the reason I zero in on
syntax: I can find a certain amount of predictability, explainable patterns
of change, that sort of thing.


> I have spent the most effort on lexicography for two reasons: 1) it is
> what I first noticed as being inaccurate when using off-the-shelf lexicons
> and 2) without accurate lexicography, it is more difficult to impossible to
> recognize patterns of syntax. However, within a few years of starting to
> read Tanakh I also realized that the grammars I had been taught were also
> wrong as far as syntax. The most glaring inaccuracies dealt with the
> reasons for the verbal conjugations.
>
>>
>>
I couldn't agree more. My life's target, as far as Hebrew goes, is to come
up with a unified theory of the verbal system that accounts for the diverse
phenomena we see with the least number of exceptions. Yes, I'm a nerd.

> --
>> Dave Washburn
>>
>> Check out my Internet show: http://www.irvingsplace.us
>>
>> Now available: a novel about King
>> Josiah!<http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/89444>
>>
>> Karl W. Randolph.
>
>


-- 
Dave Washburn

Check out my Internet show: http://www.irvingsplace.us

Now available: a novel about King
Josiah!<http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/89444>