Time to Clarify

Abstract

Time to Clarify John A. Cook A rejoinder to A. Andrason, “ The Biblical Hebrew Verbal System in Light of Grammaticalization: The Second Generation,” HS52 (2011): 19– 51. C. H. J. van der Merwe, “ Review of John Cook, Time and the Biblical Hebrew Verb: The Expression of Tense, Aspect, and Modality in Biblical Hebrew(Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic 7). Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, Indiana,” JNSL40 (2014): 131– 135. A. Andrason and C. H. J. van der Merwe, “ The Semantics Potential of Verbal Conjugations as a Set of Polysemous Senses,” HS56 (2015): 71– 88. E. Robar, “ An Old Argument in New Garb: John Cook on Aspect and Biblical Hebrew,” HS55 (2014): 399– 409. 1. I ntroduction The field of Biblical Hebrew verb study is a fascinating and active one. No one enters the fray without the expectation of pushback from colleagues. I debuted in the field in 2002 with a doctoral thesis, to which my 2012 book stands in some tension, because over the intervening decade I have deepened, broadened, and in some significant ways changed my thinking about Hebrew verb theory. 1The detailed criticisms of both by several colleagues provide a welcome opportunity for me to clarify my approach and the differences between my theory and those of others in the field. Andrason’s extensive oeuvre of the past few years has used this particular approach as a foil for his theory. He devoted a 2011 Hebrew Studiesarticle to an extended critique of my ideas. 2The timing was unfortunate, however, as I [End Page 403]was in the throes of final edits on the 2012 book. Thus, Andrason’s criticisms, aimed at the 2002 thesis, appeared on the eve of the publication of my revised thoughts. Christo van der Merwe, with whom Andrason has studied, published a review of my book in 2014, in which he devotes substantial space to a defense of his student’s ideas. 3This defense is further advanced in a joint article by Andrason and van der Merwe. 4I have therefore slightly revised my interaction below to take the latter article into account. Finally, in 2014, a review essay on my book by Elizabeth Robar, who has recently published her own thesis on the Hebrew verb, appeared in Hebrew Studies. 5My familiarity with her work and her extended interaction with mine adds another dialogue partner for the present rejoinder. 6 2. A ndrason and van derM erwe Since van der Merwe takes up and reaffirms the criticisms of my approach from Andrason, I treat them together here. The differences between Andrason and me are largely theoretical, and to that extent intractable (unless one of us is converted to the opposing stance). At the same time, my disagreement and dissatisfaction with Andrason’s theory is in large part based on his results (or rather lack thereof) as far as philologically usable insights are concerned. As mentioned already, Andrason’s lengthy critique of my 2002 thesis appeared shortly before the publication of my book. As a result, not only had I already anticipated some of his criticisms in the book, but also it was impossible for me to interact there in detail with other points that he had made. As van der Merwe observes, chapters 3 and 4 of the book “have been completely revised” via-à-vis my thesis. 7Indeed, beneath the revisions of both chapters lie some significant shifts and clarifications in my thinking about linguistic theory. Here, I reiterate and clarify some of those changes in light of Andrason’s and van der Merwe’s publications. [End Page 404] At the heart of Andrason’s criticism of my earlier work is that it is not a thoroughgoing grammaticalization analysis. He writes: From the above discussion it becomes evident that Cook’s model does not entirely comply with the requirements of the evolutionary approach. Among all the inaccuracies, three are particularly important constituting the Achilles heal [sic] of Cook’s proposal. Namely, the employment of static and one-stage definitions, the distinctions between the main/inherent meaning and contextual variations, and the claim of a binary opposition between verbal categories are untenable within the grammaticalization...