Rolf, I think you have created a false dichotomy when you say "we cannot interpret Hebrew verbs in the light of other languages, and we need to analyze Biblical Hebrew according to its own standards."
Biblical Hebrew is a Semitic language, which means its related to other Semitic languages. This doesn't mean it has no distinction from other Semitic languages. The fact that we can label Biblical Hebrew (and even there, we have two or three different types) means it has its distinctives. However, to treat Biblical Hebrew in isolation from other languages means we are not treating it as a Semitic language. We need to strike the balance. You can't just look at Hebrew and not at its close relatives, because that would not be treating Hebrew as Hebrew. It would be treating it as something else. And that, I believe, is one of the methodological flaws in your and Karl's respective approaches. You look only at Hebrew, and do not appreciate its distinctives in light of its similarities to its genetically related languages. Cheers! GEORGE ATHAS Dean of Research, Moore Theological College (moore.edu.au) Sydney, Australia From: Rolf <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Tuesday, 28 May 2013 8:28 PM To: B-Hebrew <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] to rolf Dear Karl, You have made several good points. I agree, contrary to George, that we cannot interpret Hebrew verbs in the light of other languages, and we need to analyze Biblical Hebrew according to its own standards. But here is the problem. We cannot start with "cogito ergo sum," as did Descartes, but any study must build on auxiliary hypotheses (cf. Duhem/Quine thesis). This means that we must build on the works of others, and the conclusions they have drawn. As for the Hebrew verbal system, there are too many auxiliary hypotheses, and too many different definitions. Therefore most students of Hebrew, including many scholars, are just parroting what others have said. I disagree with George, but I know that he for many years have wrestled with Hebrew verbs, and his system is a novel system that differs from others. >From my early student days, I have sought a way to reduce the auxiliary >hypotheses (or assumptions), and to avoid to start with a definition of aspect >(more than twenty different definitions exist)—if we start with a definition, >we are bound, and in a way we have violated the basic scientific principle: >"If the conclusions of a study is given before the study starts, the study is >not scientific." As for me, my study builds on four assumptions, 1) the >Masoretic texts represents the the text of the Tanakh in the time BCE (text >critical matters are of course considered), 2) a study of all the verbs of >the Masoretic text will show the function and possibly the meaning of the >Hebrew verbal system in the time BCE, 3) tense -not temporal reference) is >grammaticalization of location in time, and 4) Hebrew, as any other language, >can be analyzed by the parameters event time, reference time, and the deictic >center. I think that most Hebrew scholars agree with 1) and 2), and most >linguists agree with 3) and 4). The advantage of the parameters mentioned in 3), is that by using them we can show whether a language has tenses (semantic meaning) or only temporal reference that must be seen from the context (conversational pragmatic implicature). Further, these parameters can be used to find if a language has aspects, and to describe the nature of these aspects (six basic differences between the aspects in the languages of the world can be pinpointed). Thus, the nature of the Hebrew aspects can be described without starting with a particular definition. I started with a study of tense/temporal reference. When the tense is past, reference time (RT) comes before the deictic center (C), when it is future, RT comes after C, and when the reference is present, RT and C coincides. An analysis of ALL the verbs of Classical Hebrew gave the result that all verb forms can be used with past, future and present reference. Therefore, Hebrew does not have tenses. It is not true that I have limited myself to a study of tense, because tense plays only a minor part in my dissertation. As a matter of fact, aspect both can and MUST be studied apart from tense. Aspect is non-deictic, and the relationship between event time and reference time, which expresses the aspect, does not say anything about tense. When reference time intersects event time and a part of event time is made visible, there are differences in three respects, 1) the angle of intersection (before or at the beginning, in the middle, immediately before the end, and after the end), the breadth of the intersection (Is the whole event time or a small of big part of it made visible), and 3) the quality of the intersection (are details made visible or not). Because there are two aspects, six differences can be measured, and this has nothing to do with tense. Most of my dissertation deals with aspectual matters, and it is shown that the the relationship between event time and reference time is uniform in YIQTOL, WAYYIQTOL, and WEYIQTOL, and it is uniform in QATAL and WEQATAL. However, most scholars do not accept this, and in their models temporal references are important. Therefore, it has to a rather great extent ben necessary for me to discuss the temporal references of the verbs in order to compare my model to other models. Best regards, Rolf Furuli Stavern Norway Mandag 27. Mai 2013 13:57 CEST skrev K Randolph <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>: George: Rolf has done the study with greater granularity, statistical analysis, better knowledge of linguistics and scholarly literature, but it appears that he limited himself to tense. What I notice is that the Yiqtol /> Wayyiqtol applies to a greater range of moods than does Qatal, in fact is often a marker that another mood applies, but that’s not its main use. I read the text first of all to analyse, what does it mean? No, not the subjective “What does it mean to me?” rather what does it mean objectively? That’s where all that I was taught about the Biblical Hebrew verb fell apart: tense, aspect, definite/indefinite, none of those could be consistently applied to the whole text. Do we go with models, or with data? Yours, Karl W. Randolph. On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 5:10 PM, George Athas <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>wrote: > Karl, > > I disagree with your perception that qatal and yiqtol have the same > definiteness. See my response to Rolf in this thread. > > > *GEORGE ATHAS* > *Dean of Research,* > *Moore Theological College *(moore.edu.au) > *Sydney, Australia* > > > _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
