[b-hebrew] no to aspect

Isaac Fried if at math.bu.edu
Tue Feb 8 15:10:22 EST 2011


Do you think somebody ever spoke "Biblical Hebrew"?

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Feb 8, 2011, at 2:56 PM, James Spinti wrote:

> Precisely the reason we go around it ad infinitum. You throw out  
> the MT
> data and then don't allow any other comparative data. And, modern  
> Hebrew
> is NOT Biblical Hebrew, or would you argue that the "waw" was  
> pronounced
> "vav" in BH times?
>
> Sincerely,
> James
> ________________________________
> James Spinti
> Marketing Director, Book Sales Division
> Eisenbrauns, Good books for more than 35 years
> Specializing in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Studies
> jspinti at eisenbrauns dot com
> Web: http://www.eisenbrauns.com
> Phone: 574-269-2011 ext 226
> Fax: 574-269-6788
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Isaac Fried [mailto:if at math.bu.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 2:45 PM
> To: James Spinti
> Cc: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] no to aspect
>
> Is "Why would only one of all the Semitic languages fail to have
> gemination?" an argument? Hebrew does not have "gemination", I have
> never heard a Hebrew speaker "geminate" anything. And, indeed, why
> should he. For what purpose should a consonant, written only once, be
> doubled in the mouth, for sheer annoyance? Where do you see that the
> MT "point" to "gemination"? Are we instructed to double a consonant
> as soon as we see a dot placed in it? Is this the purpose of the dot,
> to instruct us to stutter?
> The burden of proof is upon you, and I will gladly listen to it, but,
> please, no Arabic and certainly no "Akkadian", "Ugaritic" and the  
> like.
>
> Isaac Fried, Boston University
>
> On Feb 8, 2011, at 2:20 PM, James Spinti wrote:
>
>> Isaac,
>>
>> We've been around this ad infinitum. The comparative data, the MT
>> itself, all point to gemination. You have failed to provide any
>> evidence
>> that is convincing to the contrary. Why would only one of all the
>> Semitic languages fail to have gemination?
>>
>> James
>> ________________________________
>> James Spinti
>> Marketing Director, Book Sales Division
>> Eisenbrauns, Good books for more than 35 years
>> Specializing in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Studies
>> jspinti at eisenbrauns dot com
>> Web: http://www.eisenbrauns.com
>> Phone: 574-269-2011 ext 226
>> Fax: 574-269-6788
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: b-hebrew-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org
>> [mailto:b-hebrew-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Isaac Fried
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 2:16 PM
>> To: Rolf Furuli
>> Cc: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
>> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] no to aspect
>>
>> The claim of "gemination" is, in my opinion, a mere phantasy.
>> Doubling a letter that is written only once amounts, I am afraid, to
>> a heedless distortion of the biblical text.
>>
>> Isaac Fried, Boston University
>>
>> On Feb 8, 2011, at 2:53 AM, Rolf Furuli wrote:
>>
>>> You are correct when you say that most Semitists view WAYYIQTOL as
>>> perfective. But I would ask two questions on the basis of the
>>> masoretic rules of pointing and vocalization: Could the gemination
>>> of the YOD in the prefix and the position of the stress corroborate
>>> the view that the WAY(Y)-prefix only is a conjunction that have a
>>> conjunctive force, and not is a semantic marker making
>> WAYYIQTOL
>>> different from YIQTOL?
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> b-hebrew mailing list
>> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>> _______________________________________________
>> b-hebrew mailing list
>> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew




More information about the b-hebrew mailing list