Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Dave,
Thanks for the encouragement to keep up the work.
I suppose that linguistic "predictions" are scaled. Every Hebrew grammar 
makes predictions about the language using non-biblical language, since our 
whole paradigm of forms of the q-t-l root consists of forms of that root that 
do not exist in our literature.
Of course, no one doubts the validity of those predictions based on what we 
see happening on all other roots of the same type.
But syntactic prediction seems to take on a different character than the 
"simpler" morphological predictions we are used to.
The question I want to answer is this: If I want to say, "Yesterday I did 
"x"," in good biblical Hebrew, what are my options for doing so? What would 
it look like if I said, "Tomorrow I will do "x""? Is that type of prediction 
any more dangerous or tenuous than our morphological predictions?
Blessings,
Todd Borger

-----Original Message-----
From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org 
[mailto:b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Dave Washburn
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 11:49 AM
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Syntax Workbooks

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Borger, Todd <tborger AT sebts.edu> wrote:

> 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
> ________________________________________
>


Exactly. It may or may not be possible with BH; at the very least, there will 
always be questions about how accurate any proposed grammar will be.
This is because, as Todd mentioned, we don't have any native speakers, but 
also because we have a comparatively small corpus of material to work with.
Still, I choose to keep trying, mainly because I consider the project worth 
the effort, but also because I really have nothing better to do :-)

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