Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Todd:

Much of “prediction” is correctly recognizing and applying the patterns of
the past. My objection is that the patterns of the past are not only so
often so poorly understood, even wrongly understood, that any “prediction”
based on such understanding is also wrong. Hence the importance of good
descriptive grammar before trying to make “predictions”.

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Borger, Todd <tborger AT sebts.edu> wrote:

> Dave,
> Thanks for the encouragement to keep up the work.
>

At this time I would encourage you just to try to internalize the text
without presuppositions. Memorizing helps. Whole chapters. Eventually
you’ll come to the point where you’ll recognize that certain patterns just
feel wrong, without being able to describe why. At that point, then you’ll
be ready to make correct predictions.

The lack of native speakers is a serious problem that makes recognizing the
patterns much harder and more tentative. The only thing I can say for
certain is that what I was taught in school was wrong, the rest is just
trying to make sense of what I read.

I have learned because of being involved in this discussion group that
allowed me to focus on grammar more systematically than I had done before,
hence I have learned more how to predict.


> 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.
>

So true!


> 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.
>

Even “the "simpler" morphological predictions” are wrong if they are in the
wrong syntactical relationship.


> 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?
>

What we need to recognize, what exactly did the ancient Hebrew mean when he
said “Tomorrow I will go”? (“Go” standing in for verb X) Would a more
accurate translation be “Tomorrow I intend to go” recognizing the
uncertainty of tomorrow? But God, because he is God, will use a different
form when saying “I will do X” because the creator of the universe is not
restricted in any way from fulfilling what he said he will do? When and why
did the ancient Hebrew sometimes use a participle when referring to present
action, instead of the more normal Qal Qatal? How to the actions indicated
by the Yiqtol differ from those designated by a Qatal? I’m seeing a pattern
that has no names from any grammar I have studied before, so how to explain
it? Is that pattern really accurate, or have I missed some things?

Have fun, and see if you come up with the same patterns.


> Blessings,
> Todd Borger
>
> Karl W. Randolph.