36.1035, Reviews: Prose and Poetry through Time: Sampson (2025)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-36-1035. Tue Mar 25 2025. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 36.1035, Reviews: Prose and Poetry through Time: Sampson (2025)

Moderator: Steven Moran (linguist at linguistlist.org)
Managing Editor: Justin Fuller
Team: Helen Aristar-Dry, Steven Franks, Joel Jenkins, Daniel Swanson, Erin Steitz
Jobs: jobs at linguistlist.org | Conferences: callconf at linguistlist.org | Pubs: pubs at linguistlist.org

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Editor for this issue: Joel Jenkins <joel at linguistlist.org>

================================================================


Date: 24-Mar-2025
From: Geoffrey Sampson [sampson at cantab.net]
Subject: Historical Linguistics, Semantics, Text/Corpus Linguistics: Sampson (2025)


Book announced at https://linguistlist.org/issues/35-3173

Title: Prose and Poetry through Time
Subtitle: Hebrew Verb Form Semantics in Zechariah
Series Title: Studia Semitica Neerlandica
Publication Year: 2024

Publisher: Brill
           http://www.brill.com
Book URL: https://brill.com/display/title/69910

Author(s): Stephen L. L. Huebscher

Reviewer: Geoffrey Sampson

SUMMARY
Stephen Huebscher seeks to shed new light on a central problem in the
linguistic description of Biblical Hebrew through statistical
examination of verb usage in one Old Testament book.
The main contrast in the Hebrew inflection system is between two ways
of conjugating verbs for person and number: the Suffix and the Prefix
conjugations. The contrast clearly relates in some way to TAM (tense,
aspect, and modality) issues; it is complicated by the fact that when
a verb is preceded by the consonant /w/, meaning “and” (which happens
frequently, Biblical Hebrew being a VSO language), the TAM
implications of the conjugations are radically altered. The only
conceptual categories available to Ashkenazi Jews for analysing this
area of grammar were those of logic and European languages, and it was
usual to describe Suffix and Prefix conjugations as respectively “past
tense” and “future tense”, and to describe /w/ as swapping the
meanings of the two conjugations. Thus, the root ‘sh-m-r’ means “to
guard” (Hebrew verb roots are normally sequences of three consonants,
with the vowels of a verb form determined by its grammatical role);
with first person singular affixes, ‘shamárti’ and ‘w + eshmor’
wouldbe glossed “(and) I guarded”, ‘eshmor’ and ‘w + shamárti’ as
“(and) I shall guard”.
With the rise of structural linguistics, Hebraists became aware of the
subtleties of TAM in various languages, and realized that “past
tense/future tense” are inadequate as descriptions of the Hebrew
conjugations. But despite Biblical Hebrew being, as Huebscher says,
“one of the most studied linguistic systems among ancient languages”,
scholars have found it remarkably difficult to pin down just what did
determine the usage of this central grammatical contrast. Gideon
Goldenberg (2013: 203) wrote that “a constant flux of publications on
Biblical Hebrew tenses continues, with repeated discussions of the
question whether they indicate time or aspect.” Elsewhere (Sampson
2024: 125) I have offered this topic as evidence against the idea that
different languages are alternative codings for a universal system of
concepts.
One idea, suggested for instance by Alviero Niccacci (1986), is that
the wealth of data might become more orderly if we suppose that the
semantic implications of the conjugations depend on the written genre
in which a verb appears; genres discussed by Niccacci included poetry
v. prose, and historical narrative v. direct speech. In 2017 I
reviewed (linguistlist.org/issues/28/2171/) a book by Robert Longacre
and Andrew Bowling (2015) which elaborated this idea, describing what
the authors saw as diverse implications of the Suffix/Prefix contrast
in as many as nine distinct genres of Biblical Hebrew, some of them,
for instance “complaints and lamentation”, quite specialized.
Meanwhile, Huebscher tells us that Niccacci has since (2006: 247)
changed his mind about the relevance of genre.
Huebscher’s book (derived from a PhD thesis of Clarks Summit
University, recently closed) focuses chiefly, though not solely, on
the poetry/prose distinction. He has created a database containing
every verb token found in the book of Zechariah (sometimes spelled
Zachariah – in Hebrew the first vowel is a shwa), tagged with its
membership of Suffix or Prefix conjugation, with the genre in which
the token appears, and with many TAM-relevant features of the context,
for instance whether the time of the action appears to precede,
coincide with, or follow the time of writing, and whether the action
is completed or ongoing. Huebscher’s database comprises 621 verb
tokens, omitting a few for which there is debate about whether the
standard Masoretic text faithfully reflects the original form. The
entire database is shown as an appendix to the book, though Huebscher
has of course explored it electronically.
Two main reasons make Zechariah a suitable book for this purpose.
First, Huebscher obviously needed a book which includes both poetry
and prose, as Zechariah does. But also, the 14 chapters of Zechariah
fall into two sections, dividing between Chapters 8 and 9, which are
so different that many have taken the sections to have separate
authors. The earlier section dates itself explicitly to a specific
period, 520–515 B.C., after the return of the Jews from exile; the
later section is undated, and some have argued that it was written
later, perhaps centuries later. As one pointer, Huebscher cites a
mention in v. 9.13 of Greece rather than Persia as a dominant power –
though some scholars believe this was a spurious insertion. Huebscher
uses his database to produce new evidence bearing on the issue of
single or separate authorship of the sections.  He also mentions that
Zechariah seems to be freer than some books from foreign-language
influence.
The contents of Zechariah consist largely of mysterious prophetic
visions. For Christians the most interesting passage must surely be
vv. 9.9–10, foretelling the arrival of a king humbly riding on a
donkey but destined to rule the whole world. However, Huebscher has
nothing to say about the contents of Zechariah; he is concerned
exclusively with its grammar.
The book comprises nine chapters. The first, long chapter introduces
the history of analysis of the Suffix and Prefix conjugations,
discusses a range of abstract conceptual categories which might be
used to define the TAM implications of verb forms, and presents the
research methods applied in the rest of the book. Then there is one
chapter each on: Suffix conjugation; /w/ + Suffix conjugation; Prefix
conjugation; /w/ + Prefix conjugation; imperatives; infinitives and
participles. Each of these chapters includes tables showing the
incidence of the respective verb forms, and identifies generalizations
which emerge from the statistics; inevitably, these are tendencies
rather than exceptionless laws, but some are rather clear tendencies –
Huebscher lists generalizations which satisfy statistical significance
tests, though he mentions no significance level higher than p < 0.05,
and the issue of statistical significance is coveredonly cursorily.
Then Chapter 8 relates these tendencies to past scholars’ views, which
were often informed more by impressions than counts of instances. And
finally Chapter 9 draws conclusions about the questions which
motivated the research.
One appendix, already mentioned, reproduces Huebscher’s database;
another appendix
summarizes Semiticists’ ideas about the prehistory of the Hebrew verb
forms. A third appendix displays a series of scatter plots with lines
of best fit, produced by friends of Huebscher, which graphically
represent statistics derived from the database. I believe I understand
what these plots are saying about the numerical data (though they are
inadequately explained, and Huebscher avoids discussing them); but I
struggle to see what they add to the body of the book.
Huebscher’s overall conclusion is that usage in Zechariah offers no
support to the idea that conjugation choice is genre-dependent; he
sees Biblical Hebrew as having a unified verbal system which functions
the same way in poetry as in prose. (It is interesting to read that in
some grammatical respects direct speech is closer to poetry than to
non-speech prose.) Huebscher finds that the contrast between the
conjugations aligns more closely with time than with aspect or
modality. Also, his statistics fail to support the claim that the two
sections of Zechariah are attributable to separate authors.
Furthermore, grammatical statistics in the two Zechariah sections,
together with some statistics about vocabulary choice, are compatible
with the hypothesis that both sections date from about the same early
post-exilic period.
Perhaps most of these conclusions might seem negative rather than
positive. But serious scholars should welcome evidence that
interesting hypotheses are false as much as evidence which supports
them.
EVALUATION
Statistical analysis of this kind certainly seems a promising way of
trying to move beyond impressionistic methods towards resolving a
problem of language description as intractable as the Hebrew
Suffix/Prefix contrast has shown itself to be. To that extent, the
research Huebscher has undertaken is laudable.
I find aspects of its execution problematic, however. The most serious
problem relates to
distinguishing poetry from prose. In the West today, this distinction
feels obvious: poetry is set out in a special way on the printed page.
But for ancient languages this is not necessarily true. Chinese poetry
was traditionally printed continuously like prose. Some parts of the
Masoretic Bible text, the Psalms for instance, are set in distinctive
typography, but no passage of Zechariah is treated that way, at least
in the edition on my shelves. What we mean by calling a stretch of
wording “poetry” is that it has some sort of artistic unity deriving
from linguistic features, such as metre or rhyme – not from mere
typography. Hence distinguishing these genres can be an expert task.
Huebscher relies for this on two works published by the Deutsche
Bibelgesellschaft. These authorities do not agree perfectly, but
Huebscher counts as poetry for his purposes just those Zechariah
passages which both authorities treat as such; this, he says, “yields
an excellent body of poetry”. Huebscher’s poetic corpus may be
“excellent”, but it is not uncontroversial. The New English Bible was
produced by a translation project that lasted over several decades
after the Second World War, sponsored by all the main British churches
other than the Roman Catholic and involving as translators numerous
leading scholars, who critiqued one another’s translation drafts to
arrive at final versions that all could accept. The NEB distinguishes
poetry from prose typographically, but the set of Zechariah passages
it treats as poetry are different from Huebscher’s list. There are
passages which are poetry for the NEB but not for Huebscher, e.g. vv.
13.7–9, and passages on Huebscher’s list which are prose according to
the NEB, e.g. all the many passages on that list from the earlier
section of Zechariah. My point here is not to
suggest that the NEB scholars were correct and those followed by
Huebscher mistaken – I am not qualified to adjudicate. But where there
are such large differences of opinion among those who are
well-qualified, and when poetry versus prose is Huebscher’s primary
focus, I might have thought it desirable to do more than Huebscher
does to justify the line he has taken. If the statistics were
recalculated on the basis of the NEB division into poetry and prose,
or of some other division different from Huebscher’s, might we not
find that after all they did yield a genre difference in conjugation
usage?
Huebscher’s Chapter 1 is very long, because he ranges far and wide in
discussing other
publications which have analysed the TAM area, sometimes in extremely
abstract ways. In connexion with modality he discusses the theories of
logicians such as Saul Kripke and Alvin Plantinga who have sought to
define the modal concepts of necessity and possibility by postulating
a range of logically-possible worlds, one of which is the real world,
and saying that “necessarily X” means “in all possible worlds X is
true”, while “possibly X” means “X is true in at least one possible
world”. This requires one to take a position on identity across
worlds: if “he could have told us” means that there is some possible
world in which he did tell us, how similar do the teller and the told
in that world have to be to the real he and real us to count as the
same people? When Zechariah was written, Biblical Hebrew was the
everyday vernacular of peasants as well as priests – can accurately
describing how they used their grammar really require consideration of
such abstruse questions?
PhD theses do commonly  include citations of prior publications
tenuously linked to their topic; but, when Huebscher includes such a
lengthy literature survey, it is odd that he does not mention the
Longacre and Bowling book I cited above. Huebscher’s book contains
only two brief and dismissive references to Longacre; at one point he
says “no study [of Biblical Hebrew] has dealt squarely with the issue
of the effect of genre on verbal function”, yet that is just what
Longacre and Bowling have done. So far as I know, Robert Longacre is
the most distinguished linguist to have argued for the relevance of
genre to the semantic interpretation of linguistic forms, which he has
been doing for many years. True, I am not persuaded by Longacre
myself; but for anyone to argue a case without explicitly responding
to the “leader of the opposition” inevitably weakens his case.
Huebscher’s English is not always as clear as it might be. Where he
discusses data which he has presented in tabular form, I often found
it difficult to see what feature of the table corresponded to a
statement in the discussion; and when, for instance, Huebscher gives
five lists of known differences between Classical and Late Biblical
Hebrew and says that one list “may be the most difficult to imitate
successfully”, it was quite a while before I realized that he is
referring to authors who tried to write in the style of an earlier age
and found some archaic language features harder to adopt than others.
Huebscher can also be unreliable in his handling of languages far less
exotic than Hebrew. Where he quotes Christoph Müller as writing “Le
‘yiqtol’ est fondamentalement modal, tout comme le futur”, this does
not mean “The ‘yiqtol’ is fundamentally modal, always as the future”:
it means “... is modal, just as the future is”.
I found it mildly irritating that whenever Huebscher uses the word
“paronomastic”, which he does frequently, it is always mis-spelled as
“paranomastic”. (The Greek for “name” is ‘onoma’, not ‘noma’.)
The book production is superb, as one expects from Brill (now merged
into “De Gruyter Brill”). The volume is handsome, and its print,
including plenty of pointed Hebrew, is both clear and lovely.
Huebscher’s many long footnotes are set as they should be, at the foot
of the page, rather than as endnotes forcing readers to flick back and
forth. I noticed scarcely any misprints, and only one non-trivial one:
in a translation of Zechariah v. 6.15, where “I it will be” looks like
a formal equivalent of idiomatic “it will be me”, the original just
means “it will be” – perhaps an edit has not been tidied up properly.
(Also in this example, the translation for some reason omits the last
Hebrew word, ‘Elohekem’ “your God”.) The prelims include a list of
abbreviations for book and journal titles, but many abbreviations used
are not included in the list. These are minor blemishes on a
worthwhile scholarly contribution.
REFERENCES
Goldenberg, G. 2013. Semitic Languages: features, structures,
relations, processes. Oxford University Press.
Longacre, R.E., and A.C. Bowling. 2015. Understanding Biblical Hebrew
Verb Forms: distribution and function across genres. SIL International
Publications (Dallas, Tex.).
Niccacci, A. 1986. Sintassi del verbo ebraico nella prosa biblica
classica. Studium Biblicum Franciscanum (Jerusalem).
Niccacci, A. 2006. “The Biblical Hebrew verbal system in poetry”. In
S.E. Fassberg and A. Hurvitz, eds., Biblical Hebrew in its Northwest
Semitic Setting: typological and historical perspectives. Magnes Press
(Jerusalem).
Sampson, G.R. 2024. Structural Linguistics in the 21st Century.
Cambridge Scholars Publishing
(Newcastle upon Tyne).
ABOUT THE REVIEWER
Geoffrey Sampson graduated in Chinese Studies from Cambridge
University, and his academic career was spent partly in Linguistics
and partly in Informatics, with intervals in industrial research.
After retiring as professor emeritus from Sussex University in 2009,
he spent several years as Research Fellow at the University of South
Africa. He has published contributions to most areas of Linguistics,
as well as to other subjects. His latest book is “Structural
Linguistics in the 21st Century” (2024).



------------------------------------------------------------------------------

********************** LINGUIST List Support ***********************
Please consider donating to the Linguist List to support the student editors:

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=87C2AXTVC4PP8

LINGUIST List is supported by the following publishers:

Bloomsbury Publishing http://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/

Cambridge University Press http://www.cambridge.org/linguistics

Cascadilla Press http://www.cascadilla.com/

De Gruyter Mouton https://cloud.newsletter.degruyter.com/mouton

Elsevier Ltd http://www.elsevier.com/linguistics

John Benjamins http://www.benjamins.com/

Language Science Press http://langsci-press.org

Lincom GmbH https://lincom-shop.eu/

Multilingual Matters http://www.multilingual-matters.com/

Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics / Landelijke (LOT) http://www.lotpublications.nl/

Oxford University Press http://www.oup.com/us

Wiley http://www.wiley.com


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-36-1035
----------------------------------------------------------