Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - [b-hebrew] relevance of Mishnaic Hebrew to b-Hebrew

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Uri Hurwitz <uhurwitz AT yahoo.com>
  • To: "b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: [b-hebrew] relevance of Mishnaic Hebrew to b-Hebrew
  • Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 14:31:49 -0700 (PDT)



Yitzhak Sapir wrote:
---------------------------------


On 5/25/06, Uri Hurwitz wrote: > What does Karl Randolph know about
Mishnaic Hebrew, its structure, > morphology, verbal forms, lexical
features? > > Secondly, why discuss this at all in a list specifically
dealing with > B-Hebrew?

Hello Yitzhak,

The previous discussion revolved aound the question whether

Mishnaic Heb. was spoken etc. Really no relevence here.

I preferred not to enter it, though much can be said

about the subject.

As for your suggestions below, they're speculative, and unless

they are supported by evidence, it is hard to comment

on them.

But here is a brief comment on "HMH" , "hemmah", (sorry I

have no Heb. writing font here, though I can read it). It is

part of a

group of five words, all having an unexplained Dagesh forte

in the middle vowel: Battim elleh lammah hemmah shammah.

Grammarians noticed this in the MT vocalization and, having no

explanation for this dubbed them "D'geshim for the glory of the

reading" (d'geshim

l'tiferet haqriah - perhaps you you're familiar with

this).

The silent last syllable of 'hem" in the MT, does not neccessarily

reflect earlier pronounciation, when the final Mem could have

been vowelled in pronounciation. Some evidence for that can be

found in some DSS texts;note that I am careful in stating this.

However,this would not explain the Dagesh.

It is commonly known that the later biblical books clearly

display some linguistic features which are assoicated with

the Mishnaic language; Qohelet is a prime example. But

here, as about everything in biblical studies, opinions

are not unanimous. Cf. the views of Ian Young, a very fine

scholar, with those of Avi Hurvitz (no relation of mine) who

represents the majority opinion. I just mentioined two names

out of many.

Uri













Dear Uri, Biblical Hebrew as it is preserved with vocalization and the
spelling of the manuscripts most of us use, postdates Mishnaic times and is
therefore prone to the influence of Mishnaic Hebrew. For example, for a
long time, I had felt that the vocalization of the word )t àú when suffixed,
with a dagesh, was an indication that it was probably meant to be pronounced
as the word òí with a suffix. The "original" form of reading such a word
would have been with a holam and without a dagesh. However, having seen
recently that the Amarna letters do preserve a form it-ti I am unsure about
it. Another possible example is the word hemmah äîä that has a dagesh.
Perhaps, this was meant to indicate that the word was to be pronounced henna
äðä. Here, I am still not aware of any linguistic reason to place a dagesh
in the /m/, while such reasoning is available for the /n/. In such a way
the word hemma äîä would work like the word hi) when spelled in the Torah the
same as the masculine pronoun but pronounced differently. Another example
I can think of is the use of the verb lq+ ì÷è in the Piel rather than Qal.
This would seem to be a late development. Similarly, the shift of words
like "magdal" to "migdal" would also seem to postdate Mishnaic times. Thus,
vocalization of the Biblical Hebrew would seem to require and benefit from
an understanding of the workings of Mishnaic Hebrew. Furthermore, while
consonantal differences from pre-Mishnaic times are known to be relatively
few, when they do occur they might also benefit from such an understanding
of Mishnaic Hebrew. Yitzhak Sapir http://toldot.blogspot.com

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

Previous message: [b-hebrew] Hebrew a dead language?
Next message: [b-hebrew] Relevance of Mishnaic Hebrew to B-Hebrew
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

---------------------------------
More information about the b-hebrew mailing list




---------------------------------
Ring'em or ping'em. Make PC-to-phone calls as low as 1¢/min with Yahoo!
Messenger with Voice.
>From klriley AT alphalink.com.au Thu May 25 21:47:19 2006
Return-Path: <klriley AT alphalink.com.au>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from mail3.alphalink.com.au (mail3.alphalink.com.au
[202.161.124.195])
by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6F084C00B
for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Thu, 25 May 2006 21:47:18 -0400
(EDT)
Received: from k (58-84-89-218.dial-lns5.vic.chariot.net.au [58.84.89.218])
by mail3.alphalink.com.au (8.12.11.20060308/8.9.3) with ESMTP id
k4Q1ksSD020236
for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Fri, 26 May 2006 11:47:01 +1000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <44765DF6.00000B.56825@K>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 11:46:30 +1000 (AUS Eastern Standard Time)
Content-Type: Multipart/related; type="multipart/alternative";
boundary="------------Boundary-00=_ILNUCJD0000000000000"
X-Mailer: IncrediMail (4002031)
From: "Kevin Riley" <klriley AT alphalink.com.au>
References: <20060525062749.k12x5qnz4ggow08k AT webmail.duke.edu>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
X-FID: PLAINTXT-NONE-0000-0000-000000000000
X-Priority: 3
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.8
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] the name Qumran
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.8
Precedence: list
List-Id: Hebrew Bible List <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
<mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
<mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 01:47:20 -0000


--------------Boundary-00=_ILNUCJD0000000000000
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

=0D
=0D
-------Original Message-------=0D
=0D
From: goranson AT duke.edu=0D
Date: 05/25/06 20:27:49=0D
=0D
Hi George,=0D
Yes, in the 1850s Felicien de Saulcy proposed that Qumran (which he spell=
ed=0D
Oumran and Goumran) was Biblical Gomorrah. Joan Taylor's 2002 PEQ article=
=0D
discusses this. He also located a ?pays des Ess=E9niens? between Wadi en-=
Nar=0D
or Qidron and ?in el-Ghuweir.=0D
<snip>=0D
best,=0D
Stephen Goranson=0D
http://www.duke.edu/~goranson=0D
=0D
************************=0D
I know that both 'ayin [presumably reflected in "Oumran"] and /g/ [Goumra=
n]
are common pronunciations of /q/ in Arabic dialects, but how does he get
both as reflexes of an earlier ghayin? Presumably a preserved Hebrew=20
ghayin' whould pass into Arabic unchanged. If 'Goumran' is meant to star=
t
with 'ghayin', why would it become /q/?=0D
=0D
Kevin
--------------Boundary-00=_ILNUCJD0000000000000--






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page