A Modern Grammar for Classical Hebrew (review)

Hebrew Sllldies 44 (2003) 240 Reviews among the plethora of new Biblical Hebrew grammars, although it does not seem destined to establish a new hegemony among them. Bill T. Arnold Asbury Theological Seminary Wilmore. KY 40390 BilCArnold@asbllrysem;llary.edll A MODERN GRAMMAR FOR CLASSICAL HEBREW. By Duane A. Garrett. pp. viii + 395 + verb charts. Na'ihville, Tenn.: Broadman & Holman, 2002. Paper, $34.99. Duane Garrett's Grammar is "written with the student in mind rather than the scholar" (backcover). Recently the field of Biblical Hebrew studies has seen works which attempt to be more learner-friendly. I have wondered whether this emphasis is rooted in scholars having a clearer understanding of more effective pedagogy, or having to address increasingly less academically prepared students. Perhaps it is a little of both. One of my own publications (Grammatical Concepts IOJ for Biblical Hebrew [Peabody, Millis.: Hendrickson, 2002]) was a response to encountering students with woefully inadequate understandings of language phenomena. Whatever the case may be, more learner-friendly resources surely assist all of us entrusted with the task of teaching. The grammar takes a non-inductive route through the Hebrew learning experience. Six major parts lead the student through (I) "The Alphabet and Phonetics of Hebrew," (2) "Nouns, Adjectives, Prepositions, and the Billiics of Verbs," (3) "The Hebrew Verb System in Summary," (4) "The Qal Stem in Detail," (5) "The Derived Stems in Detail," and (6) "Additional Details and Introduction to Advanced Issues." Appendixes include vocabulary, proper names, paradigms, and an answer key to the homework. The exercises are primarily Hebrew-to-English in their orientation. One does find some English-ta-Hebrew exercises, but these are restricted to the early sections. One enamoring feature within early exercises is the "diglot weave," Is Paris the ;.~ of;iN.? for example. My remarks focus now on particular sections.§1. The Hebrew Alphabet and Simple Vowels-Throughout this section the charts present the infonnation nicely. The grammar's phonetic descriptions are straightforward and non-technical. Fully appreciative of this need for simplicity, I fmd the descriptions, at points, lacking sufficient precision . The grammar's treatment of N. and!: serves as an example (§1.4, pp. 4-5). Alef is described as "almost no sound," while ayin is called a "glottal Hebrew Studies 44 (2003) 241 Reviews stop." Garrett clearly wants the student to understand that the two consonants have a slightly different sound. But if a professor is trying to recreate Masoretic or modem Israeli Sephardic Hebrew pronunciation, alef is a voiceless glottal stop/plosive, while ay;n is a pharyngeal voiced fricative. If a professor is recreating modem Israeli Ashkenazic Hebrew, both alef and ayin are identical voiceless glottal stops/plosives. We are told, further, that K was necessnry...because originally Hebrew wns written with no vowels. Writing without vowels obviously posed a problem. if. for example. a word beKan with (/ vowel sound [emphasis mine). Some letter had to be an "empty" consonant to show that there wns a vowel sound there. and K hnd thnt role (p. 5). Alef is a true root consonant. occurring in first, second, and third root positions and is not simply a placeholder for vowels. Garrett certainly knows this, but as written, what he says is, at best. awkward. and, at worst, wrong.§4.B. Overview of Hebrew Grammar-This is a good "big picture" presentation of Hebrew grammar using simple definitions (pp. 27-28).§8.B. The Qal Perfect and §9.B. The Qal Imperfect-Garrett understands the Hebrew perfect (*qatal) to be perfective in aspect. That is clear from the overall presentation. One particular paragraph, however, is confusing . On page 49. section (9) one reads "The 'perfect' is perfect in aspect, not in tense." Aspect, arguably. envelopes perfect aspect, either distinct from or related to perfective aspect. (The former commonly encodes a state that is the result of a preceding situation; the latter, as Garrett says in that paragraph, views a situation from the outside, as whole and complete.) Knowing that Garrett sees the perfect (*qatal) verbal form as perfective, how should the reader understand what Garrett means by the perfect being "perfect in aspect"? The Prefix Conjugation, being imperfective aspect, "includes future actions" (p...