Is this the way to study grammar?

Classical Hebrew morphology and syntax, aspect, linguistics, discourse analysis, and related topics
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
Ruth Mathys
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 6:49 pm

Re: Is this the way to study grammar?

Post by Ruth Mathys »

Ruth Mathys wrote:…

Ruth Mathys wrote: a speaker can get all kinds of interesting pragmatic effects by using the aspect that isn't 'normal' for a given verb. E.g. the Coca Cola slogan "I'm loving it" which goes against the usual rule that experiencer verbs like love can't take the progressive form.

Who says? From where did that rule come?



Well, would it be natural for you to say "I am loving my children"



Yes, when doing an action showing that love.
Precisely. By using the progressive form you are showing a shift from the experiencer meaning, which is the normal meaning of the verb, to an agentive sense. That's exactly the kind of effect that I'm talking about.
Ruth Mathys wrote:

Ruth Mathys wrote: A thorough cross-linguistic study would indicate the extent to which it is normal for languages to be able to use 'wrong' aspects for effect. (For that matter, 'wrong' tenses as well.) This is why I claim that you need quite a bit of evidence to be able to claim that a language doesn't do something that is so prevalent in languages throughout the world (and we have such a limited corpus to work with). How can you be sure that a given passage (especially if it's poetry) isn't just messing with the conventions?

Because the patterns I refer to are found not only in poetry, but also in prose (for Biblical Hebrew) and all other literary genre.



Could you give examples from various genres of the patterns you see, and how you interpret them?



Quite simply, I don’t know of any cases where conjugations in poetry are different from what is expected in prose.
That's not what I was asking for. What are the general patterns that you do see, that are consistent between all kinds of prose and poetry?
You claim they exist, so could you provide some examples of ‘wrong’ conjugations in poetry done for effect?
I don't know Hebrew nearly well enough to do that. All I know is that there seems to be a consistent, describable system in narrative that works OK for some poetry, but doesn't seem to work at all for other poetry. And at least some scholars seem to feel the same way.
Then shouldn’t SIL list URLs of such sites? As it is, I don’t see any, only off line books.
Be fair, Karl! SIL doesn't exist purely to do your research for you.

Ruth Mathys
kwrandolph
Posts: 1532
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Is this the way to study grammar?

Post by kwrandolph »

Ruth:
Ruth Mathys wrote:
Ruth Mathys wrote:…

Ruth Mathys wrote: a speaker can get all kinds of interesting pragmatic effects by using the aspect that isn't 'normal' for a given verb. E.g. the Coca Cola slogan "I'm loving it" which goes against the usual rule that experiencer verbs like love can't take the progressive form.

Who says? From where did that rule come?

Well, would it be natural for you to say "I am loving my children"

Yes, when doing an action showing that love.
Precisely. By using the progressive form you are showing a shift from the experiencer meaning, which is the normal meaning of the verb, to an agentive sense. That's exactly the kind of effect that I'm talking about.
You claimed that this is not normal, but my response is that it is normal for this use. It’s also normal when emphasizing the progressive use of some but not all verbs. Therefore, in American English where such use is normal, and from where comes the Coca Cola slogan you quoted, your blanket statement is incorrect.
Ruth Mathys wrote:
Ruth Mathys wrote:

Ruth Mathys wrote: A thorough cross-linguistic study would indicate the extent to which it is normal for languages to be able to use 'wrong' aspects for effect. (For that matter, 'wrong' tenses as well.) This is why I claim that you need quite a bit of evidence to be able to claim that a language doesn't do something that is so prevalent in languages throughout the world (and we have such a limited corpus to work with). How can you be sure that a given passage (especially if it's poetry) isn't just messing with the conventions?

Because the patterns I refer to are found not only in poetry, but also in prose (for Biblical Hebrew) and all other literary genre.

Could you give examples from various genres of the patterns you see, and how you interpret them?

Quite simply, I don’t know of any cases where conjugations in poetry are different from what is expected in prose.
That's not what I was asking for. What are the general patterns that you do see, that are consistent between all kinds of prose and poetry?
You claim they exist, so could you provide some examples of ‘wrong’ conjugations in poetry done for effect?
I don't know Hebrew nearly well enough to do that. All I know is that there seems to be a consistent, describable system in narrative that works OK for some poetry, but doesn't seem to work at all for other poetry. And at least some scholars seem to feel the same way.
What I understand what you are asking of me is to prove a negative. Would that not take a dissertation?

(After all, it took Rolf a dissertation to show that Biblical Hebrew verbal conjugations don’t conjugate for tense, and now you want me to show that for aspect?)

“Some scholars” well…, who? “Seem to feel” feelings are too nebulous, imprecise, prone to error. I want thinking with actual examples. A claim has been made, where is the evidence to back it up? I don’t think that claim is accurate based on reading the text through many times, but it’s possible that I’ve overlooked some examples, so where are the examples?

Based on my experience, I wouldn’t be surprised if those “some scholars” don’t have a clear understanding of Biblical Hebrew grammar use in narrative.
Ruth Mathys wrote:
Then shouldn’t SIL list URLs of such sites? As it is, I don’t see any, only off line books.
Be fair, Karl! SIL doesn't exist purely to do your research for you.
No, I don’t expect it to do my research. But I do expect that when it puts its name on a page, that the information on that page be accurate and complete enough so that people in the field, away from libraries, can access that page and get enough information to use it. As it is, I understand your claim as asserting that this information is incomplete without accessing a physical library. If so, then why have an online glossary?
Ruth Mathys wrote:Ruth Mathys
The reason I started this thread, and I don’t see a clear answer to it yet, how do we study the grammar of a language?

Do we start first defining the terms we use, e.g. present, past, tense, perfective, aspect, etc., and then look to the language under study to see if it fits those terms? This would be like a scientist setting up an experiment, defining the parameters of the experiment and defining what would be success or failure of the experiment.

Or do we declare that a language à priori declines for a certain term, then define that term to fit that one language irrespective of how that term may be used for other languages, as apparently Rolf is doing with declaring that Biblical Hebrew declines for aspect, then redefines “aspect” to what he understands is happening in Biblical Hebrew grammar?

That’s why I asked you, do you agree with Rolf that “aspect” is a meaningless, empty term to be filled with whatever meaning you want so that you can say that Biblical Hebrew conjugates for “aspect”?

Karl W. Randolph.
Ruth Mathys
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 6:49 pm

Re: Is this the way to study grammar?

Post by Ruth Mathys »

That’s why I asked you, do you agree with Rolf that “aspect” is a meaningless, empty term to be filled with whatever meaning you want so that you can say that Biblical Hebrew conjugates for “aspect”?
Karl, I'm not sufficiently competent in either Hebrew or linguistics to contribute further to this discussion at the level of certainty you require. If you want to contact me privately, I can put you in touch with a colleague who is a linguistics specialist; he may be able to answer some of your questions.

Ruth Mathys
kwrandolph
Posts: 1532
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Is this the way to study grammar?

Post by kwrandolph »

Ruth Mathys wrote:Karl, I'm not sufficiently competent in either Hebrew or linguistics to contribute further to this discussion at the level of certainty you require. If you want to contact me privately, I can put you in touch with a colleague who is a linguistics specialist; he may be able to answer some of your questions.

Ruth Mathys
Actually, this question requires no knowledge of Hebrew, and not that much in linguistics. Rather it’s a methodological question. A methodological question that also applies to other sciences.

I don’t know much linguistics, and most of what I know is decades old. You probably know much more than I.

Years ago, I was taught a definite definition for “aspect”, a definition that applies also for Greek, Russian, and other languages I studied. Shortly afterwards, I applied that definition to Hebrew, and found that Biblical Hebrew does not fit that definition. Hence, Biblical Hebrew does not conjugate for “aspect”.

(More recently, I wonder if Piel and Pual are the forms indicating imperfective aspect?)

More recently I’ve come across a practice where instead of preserving the definition of “aspect” that is still valid for Greek, Russian, and other languages, that the language is à priori defined as conjugating for “aspect” and the definition for “aspect” is changed to fit the language. Why isn’t that backwards?

Karl W. Randolph.
User avatar
Chavoux
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2013 12:20 pm
Contact:

Re: Is this the way to study grammar?

Post by Chavoux »

Karl, I would say the best (not necessarily the correct) way to study grammar, is first of all to learn the language itself until you can express yourself comfortably in the language (and understand it as well). Then you are in the position to start deducing "laws of grammar" that describe how you (and native speakers of the language with whom you communicate) use the language.
In the case of biblical Hebrew, a good way would be to translate something from English (or Septuagint Greek) into biblical Hebrew and then compare that translation with the actual Hebrew as found in the text. That would give you a good indication of how close your grammatical rules are to the actual usage of the language. (You can also learn the rules from others who have already gone through this whole process).

The interesting thing to me, is that the whole perfective (past/completed) / imperfective (future / incomplete) paradigm seems to work pretty well for most of the Hebrew Bible. I just don't see the major disconnect that you and Rolph seem to claim. There are exceptions, but then there are exceptions in all languages. E.g. in Afrikaans we will normally tell a story that happened in the past using present tense in order to make it sound more dramatic. This does not mean that past tense does not exist in Afrikaans.

Remember that native speakers use a language and speak it as it feels natural to them without thinking about grammar and that grammar rules only come afterwards to try and describe the way people actually use the language. Of course, it can also help us to learn a new language, since we can compare its grammar to that of languages we already know, but I do not think that starting with grammar is ever the best way to learn a new language. Only after a certain proficiency in the language exists, can one start to learn and apply grammar in order to figure out how to use new words in other contexts.

Shalom
Chavoux Luyt
kwrandolph
Posts: 1532
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Is this the way to study grammar?

Post by kwrandolph »

Chavoux:
Chavoux wrote:Karl, I would say the best (not necessarily the correct) way to study grammar, is first of all to learn the language itself until you can express yourself comfortably in the language (and understand it as well). Then you are in the position to start deducing "laws of grammar" that describe how you (and native speakers of the language with whom you communicate) use the language.
Unfortunately, there’s no one with whom I can communicate Biblical Hebrew, as the last native speaker thereof died about 2500 years ago. Since then no one has learned Biblical Hebrew well enough to speak it fluently — we don’t even know its pronunciation, let alone speak it. With no native speakers to correct us, it’s very likely our attempts to speak Biblical Hebrew will result in uncorrected errors becoming hardened in our minds and in our understanding of Biblical Hebrew.
Chavoux wrote:In the case of biblical Hebrew, a good way would be to translate something from English (or Septuagint Greek) into biblical Hebrew and then compare that translation with the actual Hebrew as found in the text. That would give you a good indication of how close your grammatical rules are to the actual usage of the language. (You can also learn the rules from others who have already gone through this whole process).
I haven’t done that, and except for some simple areas where prose has been translated as prose, I wonder how close translating back would be.

There is a danger to this exercise — we can become more used to our own mistranslations than to how Biblical Hebrew is actually presented in Tanakh.
Chavoux wrote:The interesting thing to me, is that the whole perfective (past/completed) / imperfective (future / incomplete) paradigm seems to work pretty well for most of the Hebrew Bible. I just don't see the major disconnect that you and Rolph seem to claim. There are exceptions, but then there are exceptions in all languages. E.g. in Afrikaans we will normally tell a story that happened in the past using present tense in order to make it sound more dramatic. This does not mean that past tense does not exist in Afrikaans.
How many times have you read Tanakh through, cover to cover, in Hebrew? Even once?
Chavoux wrote:Remember that native speakers use a language and speak it as it feels natural to them without thinking about grammar and that grammar rules
When I first saw the “Jehoash Stone” forgery, my first reaction was, “This doesn’t feel right.” I couldn’t describe in linguistic terms why it felt odd, just that it did.
Chavoux wrote: only come afterwards to try and describe the way people actually use the language. Of course, it can also help us to learn a new language, since we can compare its grammar to that of languages we already know, but I do not think that starting with grammar is ever the best way to learn a new language. Only after a certain proficiency in the language exists, can one start to learn and apply grammar in order to figure out how to use new words in other contexts.

Shalom
Chavoux Luyt
Remember, what we study in class is mostly cherry-picked examples that seem to fit the presuppositions of the teachers. When I first read Tanakh through, I was shocked at how much the actual text varied from what I had been taught in class. Yet I soldiered on, trying to make the text fit according to the rules I had been taught. It was only after about five times reading Tanakh through (I was a slow learner), that I decided to ignore what I had been taught, and just let the text sort of ooze into me, as if by osmoses, by reading Tanakh over and over again. As a result, I think I know Biblical Hebrew better than anyone else on this list, yet I make no claim to knowing it as well as a native speaker.

There are certain mistakes I notice when people study Biblical Hebrew:

1) They start with the assumption that Biblical Hebrew verbal conjugations necessarily code for some sort of time measurement — tense, aspect or a combination of the two. I claim it’s wrong to start with that assumption. I find examples of Qatal used for past, present and future tenses, both perfective and imperfective aspect. The same with Yiqtol. Likewise with participles. In both prose and poetry. As a result, I came to the conclusion that Biblical Hebrew doesn’t conjugate for time.

2) They don’t read Tanakh. By that, I mean reading it through cover to cover, so that they become familiar with the whole text, not just what they cover for class or professional studies. I also mean reading the text through multiple times, not just once or twice, but 15, 20 times. Some of the rules expressed in discussions on this list were proven wrong with looking at passages that may not be so exciting nor interesting to read, but only by being familiar with all can accurate rules be made.

3) They assume that their teachers were accurate, that they have accurate answers to all the students’ questions. As a result, they become more familiar with scholarly expositions on the language than on the text itself. This is medieval thinking that the Reformation fought against. Of course, teachers will know more than rank beginners, but as students learn more, they should be ready to challenge their teachers. The Reformation expressed itself in theology as a return to the Bible (“Sola Scriptura”) and in science to making observations and experiments, and in both ready to say that the “experts” who went before could very well be mistaken.

4) Lastly, related to #1 above, what I seem to notice now is that some people seem to say that what they observe fits certain named rules, but then they redefine the rules to their own definitions. It is this reason that I started this thread, is this the right way to go about research? Doesn’t this practice lead to confusion rather than communication?

What is your answer to point #4?

Karl W. Randolph.
jacob
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 7:39 am
Location: Jamaica

Re: Is this the way to study grammar?

Post by jacob »

Shalom Karl,

While not everyone may agree with your propositions they are worth considering. The question you posed should help us to understand more about Biblical Hebrew by delimiting the constraints of grammatarians and linguists who have done extremely well to provide a reasonable framework for learning the language. The framework is becoming old and rusty, and we must build a more robust framework by adopting new and different paradigms of definition aided by the Holy Spirit.
Lascelles James
Jamaica
jacob
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 7:39 am
Location: Jamaica

Re: Is this the way to study grammar?

Post by jacob »

Shalom,

Our understanding of the Tanakh will become clearer as we are led by the Holy Spirit. Yahweh revealed His purposes and intents for The Hebrews so that they would be guided by them. Our interpretive structures are constrained by grammatical formulations that are inadequate but evolving as God determines in His own time so that we too may benefit from His words.
Lascelles James
Jamaica
User avatar
Ben Putnam
Posts: 47
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 11:08 am

Re: Is this the way to study grammar?

Post by Ben Putnam »

I find it somewhat inconsistent that Karl always seems to claim no one can really know BH since it is a dead language with no more native speakers, and yet that he is an expert who has a natural feel for the language, intuitively understanding it, and that better than anyone else here. Just seems a little strange to me.
Ben Putnam
kwrandolph
Posts: 1532
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Is this the way to study grammar?

Post by kwrandolph »

OK Ben:
Ben Putnam wrote:I find it somewhat inconsistent that Karl always seems to claim no one can really know BH since it is a dead language with no more native speakers, and yet that he is an expert who has a natural feel for the language, intuitively understanding it, and that better than anyone else here. Just seems a little strange to me.
This is a legitimate question. What does it mean “to have a feel for the language?” What exactly are we talking about?

I absolutely and repeatedly emphasize that I don’t have a native speaker’s internalization of the language. It’s very likely that if a native speaker were to come alive again that he would understand no one, myself included.

On the other hand, it’s possible to become so familiar with certain patterns that one can recognize them without conscious thought, so that when the pattern is violated, that the first reaction is that it doesn’t “feel right” before a conscious recognition of why the pattern is different.

I have read Tanakh through so many times that I have become familiar with the written word and the patterns of written Biblical Hebrew syntax. This is especially important to people like myself who are dyslexic, and depend on recognizing context and contextual patterns to serve as a constant corrective while reading. It has become so ingrained that I recognize those patterns mostly without conscious thought, i.e. feeling. Based on this experience, wouldn’t you agree that the best way to learn Biblical Hebrew is to read Tanakh?

Do you still question the possibility of acquiring a “feeling” for the language, even though it’s not a speaking familiarity thereof?

Karl W. Randolph.
Post Reply