Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Borger, Todd" <tborger AT sebts.edu>]

I have a hard time reading through the various conversations, but it seems 
there is a misunderstanding, or a confusion of terms, about levels of 
adequacy.
The terms descriptive and explanatory in regard to adequacy are terms from 
Chomsky. He suggested three levels of adequacy: observational, descriptive, 
and explanatory. A grammar that achieves observational adequacy simply lists 
the data. There is no attempt to explain anything about the data. A grammar 
that achieves descriptive adequacy is able to make general statements about 
the data and organizes it into categories. The goal for Chomsky was to create 
a grammar that achieves explanatory adequacy. Explanatory adequacy is the 
level at which the grammar is understood, is able to be taught to others, 
and, perhaps most importantly, has predictive power. The final element, the 
predictive component, is the most difficult and controversial when we speak 
of biblical Hebrew grammar, because we do not have native speakers to give 
acceptability judgments on predicted material. Despite that problem, it is my 
opinion that we should attempt to achieve that level of adequacy, while also 
maintaining a humility about the conclusiveness of our conclusions.

Blessings,
Todd Borger
________________________________________
From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org [b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] 
on behalf of K Randolph [kwrandolph AT gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 7:04 PM
To: Dave Washburn
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Syntax Workbooks

Dave:

On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 9:28 PM, Dave Washburn 
<davidlwashburn AT gmail.com>wrote:

>
> … 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.


But that is the heart of science.


> 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 not sure what you mean by the “WHY”?

I suspect that part of the disagreement we have here is a semantic one:
where I am looking at the concepts and terms from a dynamic, functional
viewpoint, while you are working from a static understanding. Correct me if
I misunderstand you.

As I understand it, a functional description includes recognizing patterns
and working from them to be able to predict linguistic behavior. I don’t
see how a functional approach to description differs from what you call
explanatory. Maybe I’m just too dense.

>
> >  … 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.
>

Realistically, I don’t think it is possible to hold these apart.

For example, every Biblical Hebrew clause has a subject, verb, and where
applicable, object. There are two exceptions: 1) where the verb “to be” is
omitted, in that Biblical Hebrew really didn’t have that verb, but it was
understood from semantics, and 2) where a clause is recognizably a
subordinate clause taking its verb from the main clause, again the syntax
recognizable from the semantics.

Years ago on this list, I used the working together of semantics and syntax
to show that the Masoretic pointing of Proverbs 1:19 is wrong, and why (
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew/2010-June/042212.html ). And
this was based on functional descriptive linguistics.

>
> 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.
>

Not only this reason, but in Biblical Hebrew there are a few more reasons:

Not all words in Tanakh have Hebrew roots, instead some, if not many, are
loan words from other languages. Some are widely recognized, but how many
are loan words cannot at this time be determined.

Because Biblical Hebrew had no vowels, how many of the words that presently
are spelled the same originally had different pronunciations, different
meanings, different roots?

Related to the above, how many of the words have pointing that indicate
roots that are the wrong ones?

Etymology can be useful to help understand words, and when one looks at
actions rather than forms, the etymologies are often easier to see, yet
before I recognize an etymological relationship, there has to be a
connection not only of form, but more importantly of meaning.

>
> 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.
>
> … 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.
>
> Again, functional description seems to be the answer. But connect that
also with proper definitions, pattern recognition, and so forth. But in
that practice, I find that I often disagree with translations based on
tradition. I find I seldom have to deal with inconsistencies,
contradictions and diversity. Oh yes, ignore those pesky Masoretic
points—they not only clutter up the page, but also often enough are wrong.

Finally, recognize that personal style can influence how we understand
syntax. Within language there is a certain amount of fuzziness that is
still syntactically correct.

>
> --
> 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.
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew