Skip Navigation

Journal of Semitic Studies 2009 54(1):81-109; doi:10.1093/jss/fgn041
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Decaen, V.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

©The author. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the University of Manchester. All rights reserved.

Articles

Theme and Variation in Psalm 111: Phrase and Foot in Generative-Metrical Perspective1

Vincent Decaen

University of Toronto

This programmatic paper approaches the metre of biblical poetry as a problem in generative metrics. Recalling the earlier proposal of Kurylowicz (1972, 1975), it is argued that the organizational principles of the Tiberian liturgical chant (syllable, foot, and, crucially, phonological phrase) are also the metrical principles of biblical poetry — or at least that of Job, Proverbs and a fair portion of the Psalms. When the musical transformations of the poetic accent system are taken into account, Psalm 111 conforms to Kurylowicz's 2+2 phrases per verse. However, the 2+2 analysis only scratches the surface: the distribution of foot-, word- and line-types in Psalm 111 is also regulated by prosodic principles.


1 A special word of thanks to Elan Dresher, to whom this paper is dedicated, and whose continued support and encouragement through the years have kept me working away at generative grammar and Tiberian Hebrew phonology (or as I prefer, ‘generative Masoretics’). It should be obvious that Dresher's seminal 1994 study is my constant inspiration throughout.

I must also recognize John Hobbins and his invaluable online resources, especially his detailed bibliographies and history of research (see http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com). He was quick with voluminous and insightful feedback on earlier drafts, and the study is many times better as a result. I am especially grateful for his pointing out those crucial footnotes in Dhorme's commentary on Job, and also for patiently explaining the details of Fokkelman's syllable counting.

Thanks also to Jim Price who, in addition to offering feedback on an earlier draft, generously supplied me with data for nesiga before silluq. Specific insights are noted in the relevant footnotes.

Of course, these gentlemen can in no way be held responsible for the views — let alone the errors — contained herein.

I should also thank an anonymous reviewer for helpful suggestions that have been incorporated in this final version, especially for alerting me to Loretz's count for Psalm 111.

Finally, my work is made possible in part through a generous grant from the nonprofit GRAMCORD Institute, dedicated to computer-assisted analysis of biblical languages (http://www.gramcord.org).


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.