>In her excellent book on Hebrew Parallelism, Adele Berlin* cites approvingly a
>"transformational" analysis of 2Sam 22:14 made by S. Geller**. To keep this on
>topic I have transferred the the discussion from the MT to the LXX which has
>no impact on the argument.
>
>2Sam 22:14 reads
>
>EBRONTHSEN EX OURANOU KURIOS
>KAI
>hO hUPSISTOS EDWKEN PHWNHN AUTOU
>
>Berlin argues that these two lines (ignore KAI) are syntactically parallel
>because they are "transformed" from the same underlying propositional
>structure ("deep structure"). The transformational analysis results in the
>following reconstruction of both lines:
>
>KURIOS EX OURANOU EBRONTHSEN
>hO hUPSISTOS EX OURANOU EDWKEN PHWNHN AUTOU
>
>Berlin states:
>
>" Geller considers both clauses as different realizations of the same
>underlying sentence . . . Geller's analysis is therefore on a deeper
>linguistic level . . . it penetrates deeper into the underlying grammatical
>structure of the lines."
>
>I have a "deep" objection to this procedure. What we have here is a theory of
>syntactic parallelism which is constructed firmly on the foundation of a
>speculation. The speculation is the dubious notion that we can reduce all
>utterances to a simplistic subject-verb-object propositional structure. I
>think this kind of analysis has very little power to "explain" what is going
>on in a text because it is reductionist by nature, removing all kinds of
>significant detail that is present in the so called "surface structure."
>
>I think A. Berlin's book has a lot to recommend it but the adoption of the
>transformational language model is a flaw which I am willing to overlook as I
>mine out the other insights she has gathered on this subject. Some of you may
>remember that this is the same attitude I have taken toward Richard Young's
>Intermediate NT Grammar.
>
Dear Clay,
I share your scepticism toward the "deep structures". Nobody has ever
defined these or given clear rules of how to find them, neither Noam
Chomsky, who invented the concept, nor Eugene Nida, who used them as a
point of departure in his invention of the "kernels" as helps in bible
translation. In his latest works Chomsky has detracted many of his earlier
ideas about the deep structeres; in fact very little is left.
Results which neither can be tested nor falsified can hardly be termed
scientific at all, so while trying to penetrate as deeply as possible into
our textual corpus, we should always be sure that we have parameters
controlling our work, so others can be able to follow the same route. Such
are completely lacking in connection with the "deep structures".
Structures which are the diametrically opposite of the "deep structures",
because they are the very backbone, both of the Greek and Hebrew verbal
systems, are the aspects. These are clear surface structures because all
the verbs are organized around them, using them as their skeleton. Judging
from the role they play, the aspects are the most important structures in
the whole verbal system, so how can you be consistent in denying the
importance of the "deep structures" because their foundation is
speculative, and at the same time denying the importance of the aspects
although they are the most distinctive surface structures?
Regards
Rolf
Rolf Furuli
Lecturer in Semitic languages
University of Oslo.