Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Rolf Furuli" <rolf.furuli AT sf-nett.no>]

Dear Jonathan,


>
> Yes this is what I am attempting.  I may be completely off the mark on this 
> type of discourse,  but I think It is very plausible.
>
> > This is a theory that often collides head on with the Hebrew text.>
> I think Longacre's analysis of "Joseph" is quite conclusive; the data in BH 
> narrative at least is pretty overwhelming.

There are differences between studies in the natural sciences and studies in 
languages, but there are similarities as well. And in both areas the 
principles of the Philosophy of Science must be taken into account. If we use 
the Hypothetic-Deductive method and form a hypothesis, make a prediction on 
the basis of the hypothesis, and that prediction turns out to be correct, 
have we proven that the hypothesis is correct? Not at all! There are two 
reasons for this, 1) there are several assumptions outside the hypothesis 
that must be used to form the hypothesis (Duhem-Quine thesis), and 2) The 
situation that the hypothesis (and the assumptions) predicted can be 
explained in many different ways, not only by our hypothesis.

In order to avoid a part of the problem described above, in the natural 
sciences, the smallest possible units are studied. A single unit may have two 
possible answers; if we study two units together, the possible answers may be 
four or more. The more units we study at the same time, the less reliable are 
our conclusions, because the possible answers increase in an exponential way. 
That is the reason why I find Discourse Analysis completely unsuitable for 
the description of the verbal system  of a dead language like Hebrew. There 
simply are no controls for the conclusions that are drawn, and the pattern we 
think we see can be explained in different ways. My model is that Hebrew has 
only two conjugations; YIQTOL, WEYIQTOL, and WAYYIQTOL represent the 
imperfective aspect, and QATAL and WEQATAL represent the perfective aspect. 
The WE- and WAYY-PREFIXES are the conjunction WAW, and this WAW has only a 
syntactic (pragmatic) role, and not a semantic role. Why not try to apply 
this model to the "Joseph" material and see what you get. In order not to be 
misunderstood, I would like to say that Discourse Analysis is an important 
tool in the study of all kinds of texts; but not to show the MEANING 
(FUNCTION) of the verbal system of a dead language.

Because of the problems implied by the Hypothetic-Deductic Method and by 
Duhem-Quine, I have followed the principle of the natural sciences in my 
study of Hebrew, namely, to start with the smallest possible units. These 
units are the dectic center, event time, and reference time. The relationship 
between the deictic center and reference time describes tense, which 
represents deictic time; and the relationship between reference time and 
event time describes aspect, which represents non-deictic time. This approach 
is the diametrical opposite of Discourse Analysis. By analyzing all the verbs 
of the Tanakh by these three parameters, I found that tense is not 
grammaticalized in Hebrew; and I found  that  Hebrew has aspects and  how 
these aspects differ from the aspects in English and other aspectual 
languages. And most important, by using small units in our analysis, there 
are good controls to test our conclusions.

I let the text of Proverbs 31:12-27 stand. In my view, these verses 
excellently demonstrate the basic weakness of Discourse Analysis used as a 
description of Hebrew verbs. The NIV translators and other Bible translators 
did not find any discourse differences between the verbs (QATAL, YIQTOL and 
WAYYIQTOL) of these parallel clauses, and neither do I.


> >
> > Prov. 31:12  ¶      She brings him good, not harm,
> >             all the days of her life.
> > Prov. 31:13  ¶      She selects wool and flax
> >             and works with eager hands.
> > Prov. 31:14  ¶      She is like the merchant ships,
> >             bringing her food from afar.
> > Prov. 31:15  ¶      She gets up while it is still dark;
> >             she provides food for her family
> >             and portions for her servant girls.
> > Prov. 31:16  ¶      She considers a field and buys it;
> >             out of her earnings she plants a vineyard.
> > Prov. 31:17  ¶      She sets about her work vigorously;
> >             her arms are strong for her tasks.
> > Prov. 31:18  ¶      She sees that her trading is profitable,
> >             and her lamp does not go out at night.
> > Prov. 31:19  ¶      In her hand she holds the distaff
> >             and grasps the spindle with her fingers.
> > Prov. 31:20  ¶      She opens her arms to the poor
> >             and extends her hands to the needy.
> > Prov. 31:21  ¶      When it snows, she has no fear for her household;     
> >           for all of them are clothed in scarlet.
> > Prov. 31:22  ¶      She makes coverings for her bed;
> >             she is clothed in fine linen and purple.
> > Prov. 31:23  ¶      Her husband is respected at the city gate,
> >             where he takes his seat among the elders of the land.
> > Prov. 31:24  ¶      She makes linen garments and sells them,
> >             and supplies the merchants with sashes.
> > Prov. 31:25  ¶      She is clothed with strength and dignity;
> >             she can laugh at the days to come.
> > Prov. 31:26  ¶      She speaks with wisdom,
> >             and faithful instruction is on her tongue.
> > Prov. 31:27  ¶      She watches over the affairs of her household> >      
> >           and does not eat the bread of idleness.

Let me apply Discourse Analysis to Proverbs 31 in order to throw some light 
on the use of verb forms. In vv. 11-27, there are 17 QATALS and 7 WAYYIQTOLs. 
But we also find 5 YIQTOLs. Why are the YIQTOLs used?  The Discourse answer 
is simple. The WAYYIQTOL is in most instances clause initial, and the reason 
why  the YIQTOLs are used in vv. 11, 14, 18, 21, 27 is that they are preceded 
by a word element in each case. If the word construction were changed and the 
YIQTOLs were claus initial, all the YIQTOLs would probably have been prefixed 
by the conjunction WAW and would have been WAYYIQTOLs. BTW, there are clause 
initial YIQTOLs in other contexts, many of these, but not all have a modal 
function.

> Jonathan E Mohler


Best regards,


Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway