An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax

that embody textual relations, analyzing them into three different groups: (1)
forms that refer to other words (e.g., pronominal suffixes), (2) forms that refer to a
relationship between clauses (conjunctions), and (3) forms that refer to relations
between segments of text (he calls these macro-syntactic signs; e.g., discourseinitial
יהְי ִ ו). ַ 24 As E. Talstra notes, Schneider’s [Page 55] observations are not in
themselves new; what is new is the way the phenomena are organized, according
to function in the text. Schneider distinguishes anaphoric signs (those that refer
backwards, e.g., most personal pronouns in Hebrew), cataphoric signs (those that
refer forwards, e.g., interrogative pronouns), and deictic signs (those that refer to
the situation of communication, pointing outside the discourse, e.g., demonstrative
pronouns). All these signs are treated in the present grammar in a more traditional
framework; it is the merit of Schneider’s work to bring them together in their
common pointing function and distinguish among them on the basis of orientation
(pointing back, pointing forward, pointing out), in ways not possible in traditional
grammar.
e We have resisted the strong claims of discourse grammarians in part for the
theoretical and practical reasons mentioned earlier: most syntax can be and has
been described on the basis of the phrase, clause, and sentence. Further, it is
evident that the grammatical analysis of Hebrew discourse is in its infancy. As an
infant, it offers little help for the many problems of grammar which have not been
well understood. Most translators, we think it fair to say, fly by the seat of their
pants in interpreting the Hebrew conjugations. Hebrew grammarians have only
recently come to appreciate morphemes as diverse as the “object marker” תא and
the enclitic mem. No modern grammar, further, has begun to gather together the
wealth of individual studies that have been carried out in a more traditional
framework; thus it is not surprising that some students know little about the case
functions and some commentators make egregious errors in their interpretations of
prepositions. For our purposes, therefore, we are content to stay with more
traditional bases than those of discourse grammar.
3.3.5 Analytical Approaches
problem, as Hospers notes, involves the difficulty of Hebrew. Henri Fleisch has said
that Hebrew is not a difficult language but one where one finds some difficulties;
Introduction à l’étude des langues sémitiques (Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve, 1947) 55.
James Barr has also said that it is not an extremely difficult language; “The Ancient
Semitic Languages—The Conflict between Philology and Linguistics,” Transactions
of the Philological Society 1968: 37–55, at 52.
24
For another treatment of macro-syntactic signs, see Richter, GAHG 3. 205–6; they
are there called text-deictics (e.g., ˓attâ, wayhî, wəhāyâ).