Dear Isaac,
Thank you for your email, the point of which I am sympathetic, although on which I am ambivalent.
Who is Mr. Golem?
I know what a golem is but your email contains a puzzle which I am unable to unravel.
Best regards,
Art Gershman
Ben Zoma said: Who is wise? Those who learn from all people. Pirkei Avot 4:1
----- Original Message -----
From: Isaac Fried
To: Rolf Furuli
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 10:06 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Question for Rolf on the JW outlook on the Hebrew
All,
The thrust of this sly theological-ideological ruse of "biblical
Hebrew" being a "dead language" is transparent. For If it so, then
Isaac Fried and millions of people like him who are spending their
lives studying the Hebrew bible, thinking that they understand what
they are reading, are in fact in grave denial. All these years they
were riding a dead horse and getting nowhere. They were thinking they
were making progress, but it was only the wind blowing in their
ears. Indeed: "In the study of a dead language we can never draw a
conclusion and believe that this is the final word, this is the
truth". THIS IS THE TRUTH! Moreover, "We never reach a final stage in
the study of a dead language." Harken writers on living languages,
you are wasting your time, FINAL STAGE is nearly come.
I am really alarmed. All those years I approached "a dead language
without a linguistic theory and several assumptions, for example,
that the dead language behaved in a way similar to living languages."
And, of course, "Any approach to the verbal system of a dead language
must entail subjective judgements". And, of course, "No
interpretation (INTERPRETATION!) of a dead language is final, there
certainly are alternative interpretations. The good advice to the
student is to look at the methodologies behind the interpretations."
But what if the (arbitrary) assumption "that the dead language
behaved in a way similar to living languages" is wrong, and said
methodologies futile?! By the way, is JAE (Jane Austen English)
likewise a dead language?
Also, dear members, don't forget that this study "requires a
knowledge of the minds of dead prophets." But what about the minds, I
may ask, of living prophets, such as that of our dear neighbor Mr.
Golem?
But there is a ray hope shining out of the north (KI MI-TZAFON
TIPATAX HA-TOVA). A certain Rolf Furuli, lecturer of Semitic
languages at the university of Oslo, devised (one of?) "different
approaches" by the aid of which "we can try to come as close [to]
[the?] the correct understanding as possible" of a sacred book
written, alas, in a "dead language". THE CORRECT UNDERSTANDING! Not
entirely, "BH" being after all a "dead language", but we are still
invited to TRY and "approach" the truth AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE!
Mind you.
Isaac Fried, Boston University
On Mar 24, 2007, at 3:04 AM, Rolf Furuli wrote:
> Dear Harold,
>
> In the study of a dead language we can never draw a conclusion and
> believe
> that this is the final word, this is the truth. But by the use of
> different
> approaches we can try to come as close the the correct
> understanding as
> possible. I have also applied my model to New Testament Greek,
> although I
> have not yet analysed all the verbs of the NT. You are correct in your
> observations that the aorist may have non-pastreference - it can
> even has
> future reference (e.g., Jude 1:14). My conclusion so far is that
> past tense
> is not a part of the aorist, but it represents the perfective
> aspect. I
> take the imperfect as as past tense + the imperfective aspect,
> present as
> the imperfective aspect, and future as future tense.
>
>
>
>
> .
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Harold Holmyard" <hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net>
> To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2007 1:02 AM
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Question for Rolf on the JW outlook on the
> Hebrew
>
>
>> Dear Rolf,
>>>
>>> When I ask the question: "Is past tense an uncancelable part of the
>>> WAYYIQTOL form?," I seek a scrupulous distinction between
>>> semantics and
>>> pragmatics when I answer the question, and I use "scrupulous" as
>>> defined
>>> by
>>> Websters.
>>>
>>>
>> HH: What you are seeking for seems unrealistic. An essential idea
>> of the
>> Greek aorist is that it is a preterite; it expresses past meaning.
>> But
>> that is not always the case. Sometimes the aorist can be used in
>> contexts which indicate a present meaning. And it can be used in
>> contexts which imply a future meaning. I was just reading about it:
>>
>> http://books.google.com/books?id=BExv_MTYrZkC&dq=uses+of+aorist
>> +Greek&pg=PA22&ots=gXedHFoi0S&sig=Xpoo7X4iOYetqTTFLw0tPx4R2u0&prev=ht
>> tp://www.google.com/search%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3Duses%2Bof%2Baorist%
>> 2BGreek%26btnG%3DGoogle%
>> 2BSearch&sa=X&oi=print&ct=result&cd=2#PPA16-IA4,M1
>>
>>
>> Language is not as rigid as you seem to propose.
>
> RF
> I think you misunderstand my position here.
>
>>
>> Yours,
>> Harold Holmyard
>> _______________________________________________
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rolf Furuli
> University of Oslo
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.