Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T09:07:10.268Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Grammaticality in Modern Hebrew

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 January 2009

Ora Rodrigue Schwarzwald
Ora Rodrigue Schwarzwald
Affiliation:
Bar Ilan UniversityRamat Gan, Israel
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The term “grammar” is ambiguous. This essay explores the meanings of the term in general and concentrates on its relevance to Modem Hebrew. The gap between the lexical meanings and the speakers' knowledge of grammaticality is demonstrated as being a result of the close linkage between Biblical Hebrew grammar and Modem Hebrew norms.

Type
Research Article
Information
International Journal of Middle East Studies , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , February 1981 , pp. 11 - 19
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

NOTES

1 See Guralnik, D. B., ed., Webster's New World Dictionary (New York: World Publishing Company, 1970), p. 607. Disregarded here is the reference to grammar as elementary principles of any field of knowledge and of the written description of these, because it is irrelevant to language.Google Scholar

2 The description may be given within any theoretical framework, structuralist or generativist.

3 Chomsky, N. and Halle, M., The Sound Pattern of English (New York: Harper and Row, 1968), pp. 3–4.Google Scholar

4 Palmer, F., Grammar (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1971), p. 13.Google Scholar

5 Rosén, H. B., “diqduq,” Encyclopaedia Hebraica, Vol. 12 (Jerusalem: Massada Press, 1959).Google Scholar

6 Even-Shoshan, A., Ha-Milon He-hadash (Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer, 1967).Google Scholar

7 Ben-Yehuda, E., Milon Ha-Lashon Ha- 'ivrit Ha-Yeshana Ve-ha-hadasha (Jerusalem, 1948).Google Scholar

8 There existed other vocalization system such as the Palestinian, the Babylonian, and a mixed PalestinianTiberian system. See Eitan, E., “Masora veniqud” in “Hebrew Language,” Encyclopaedia Hebraica, Vol. 26 (Jerusalem: Massada Press, 1974).Google Scholar

9 For details regarding the phonemic system of Modem Hebrew see Rosén, H. B., Contemporary Hebrew (The Hague: Mouton, 1977), pp. 55–63;CrossRefGoogle ScholarBolozky, S., “Some Aspects of Modem Hebrew phonology,” in Berman, R. A., Modern Hebrew Structure (Tel Aviv: University Publishing Projects, 1978), pp. 11–50.Google Scholar

10 This phonemic system reflects the general standard type of pronunciation, Ashkenazoid in Blanc's terminology. See Blanc, H., “Hebrew Israeli texts” in Rosen, H. B., ed., Studies in Egyptology and Linguistics in honour of H. J. Polotsky (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1964), pp. 132–152.Google Scholar

11 The angled brackets (<>) indicate the spelling of the traditional system as presented in (ia).

12 Rabin, C., “Ha-diqduq she-?anu melamdim,” Minha Le'Kodesh (Jerusalem: Council on the Teaching of Hebrew, 1979), p. 105 (my translation).Google Scholar

13 See Blanc's classification of spoken Hebrew, referred to in n. 10, above.

14 The choice of the three-tense-form system was created by incorrect interpretation of the tense system in Mishnaic Hebrew: in Mishnaic Hebrew po'al (“past-tense”) forms were used for the past and po'el (participle, “present-tense”) forms for the present and future tenses. The yif'al (“future-tense”) forms were restricted to modal, subjunctive sentences. See further discussion in section 6. A detailed account of the linguistic influences of the various language periods on Modem Hebrew can be found in Chapter 8 of Kutscher, Y. E., The Development of the Hebrew Language (Jerusalem: Magnes Pub. House, in press).Google Scholar

15 For more instances see Rosén in Contemporary Hebrew.

16 This is part of the spirantization rule which changed p b t d k g to f v t d k g after a vowel.

17 The proper name Solomon is always pronounced šlomo. For further details see Schwarzwald, O. R., “Markedness Relations in the Pronunciation of the Prefixed Particles in Modern Hebrew,” AfroAsiatic Linguistics, in press.Google Scholar

18 Schwarzwald, O. R., “me-'alilot ha-po'al he-'alul,” Baishanut Shimushit, 2 (1980), 63–76.Google Scholar

19 The haya + participle combination is regularly used to indicate the past tense in cases where the suffixed-stem and the participle forms are homonemes, e.g., gar ‘he lived, lives,’ nixnas ‘he entered, enters,’ hence, haya gar, haya nixnas indicate past tense too.

20 For further details see Rosén, , Contemporary Hebrew, pp. 179–199.Google Scholar

21 It should be emphasized here that by no means do I oppose the study of Biblical Hebrew grammar. On the contrary, this study is essential to the understanding of the Hebrew sources. I object to the presentation of Biblical Hebrew grammar as singularly reflecting Modern Hebrew grammar. Morphosyntactic and syntactic facts about Modern Hebrew grammar ought to be taught primarily; Biblical Hebrew facts will be placed as part of the grammatical study, however, the student will be required to learn them passively. He would recognize the phenomena and will be able to explain them, but he would not be asked to apply them productively.