Correspondence

CORRESPONDENCE Response to the review by Peter J. Gentry of Malcolm J. A. Horsnell. A Review and Reference Grammar for Biblical Hebrew. Pp. xviii + 464. Hamilton, Ontario: McMaster University Press, 1999, in Hebrew Studies 42 (2001): 289-297. Notwithstanding a number of useful comments, Gentry's review of my grammar is overly negative. Gentry glosses over strengths, critiques my pedagogical method by confusing the purpose of an introductory grammar with that of an intermediate review and reference grammar, incorrectly concluding that review and reference cannot be handled together, makes some erroneous and misleading statements, and is not sensitive to the need for inclusive language. Gentry writes, "some sections were excellent" (p. 293), "the grammar has good points" (p. 293), and the "taxonomy of the weak verb is exhaustive" (p. 291). Gentry rather quickly moves on to perceived negatives, particularly where pedagogical issues concerning the proper and most efficient ways of presenting descriptions and instructional materials are involved. Gentry considers it imprudent to discuss weak verbs, doubly weak verbs, and pronominal suffixes "at the end," that is, in Review and Reference Grammar, Part 2 (pp. 290-291). He prefers discussion of weak and doubly weak verbs with the strong verb up front and discussion of pronominal suffixes much sooner (p. 291). The order in which these topics are discussed is not imprudent. Gentry ignores the following considerations: (1) intermediate students already have a working knowledge of these forms; (2) intermediate students can review these forms inductively while working through Part 1 and reading in the Hebrew Bible with a (parsing) lexicon; (3) this is an intermediate reference and review grammar, not an introductory grammar; (4) discussion of these topics in separate lessons provides a helpful systematic overview of each topic; spreading them throughout the grammar would remove this systematic overview, unless the Review and Reference Grammar became too large and repetitive; (5) the potential for overloading the student with too much detail and complexity simultaneously; (6) each lesson stands independently and the lessons of Part 2 can be used in any order as reference tools while working through Part I; (7) what Gentry suggests cannot "reduce the Mount Hermon of verbal [and pronominal] morphology to a more manageable Mount Mizar" (p. 291). Gentry says: "Irregular verbs like npl;! and 11;!i1 are best reviewed along with the Pe Nun and Pe Waw verbs respectively" (p. 291). That is exactly what the Review and Reference Grammar does (Lessons 50 and 51)! Hebrew Studies 44 (2003) 306 Correspondence On the one hand, Gentry fmds my examples "numerous, sometimes unnecessarily so" (p. 296, evidenced by pausal forms in Review and Reference Grammar, pp. 216-218). In a review and reference grammar, this can hardly be so. On the other hand, Gentry says, "Sometimes no examples are given, just references to other grammars" (p. 296), incorrectly implying intermittent absence of examples throughout the Review and Reference Grammar. His single example comes from p. 312 under "Types of Clauses." He ignores the stated purpose of this section- to refer students to works of more extensive coverage than the Review and Reference Grammar has room to deal with (RRG, pp. 309t). Gentry laments that I reconstruct forms not appearing in the Hebrew Bible (p. 297). However, as is commonly practiced in Hebrew grammars, reconstruction of forms shows the logic of an overall paradigm. Another reviewer has suggested that, "second-year students will appreciate the provision of hypothetical forms (e.g. Hophal imperative [116])" (SR 28 [1999], p. 523). Gentry states: "a corrected edition (not noted anywhere as such) came out in 1999" (p. 297, italics mine). Actually, the Preface of the 1999 "Revised Edition" states that "spelling and punctuation have been adjusted" and that "some errors have been corrected" (RRG, p. vi). This is not to deny residual errors. Gentry believes "Horsnell's language is politically correct, sometimes to the point of absurdity" (p. 297). This implies that the language of the entire grammar is "politically correct," presumably because I refer to the student sometimes as "he/him" and sometimes as "she/her." The only "absurdity" Gentry is able to produce is my infelicitous translation of Gen 4: 1, "Now the human knew Eve, his wife..." (italics...