[b-hebrew] exodus, dating of linguistics

Michael Abernathy mabernathy at isot.com
Sat May 29 16:26:54 EDT 2004


> But would a native of this region use "boot" in a
> written work intended for national circulation? Probably not, as they
> would be aware that this is not the most widespread usage.
In writing to one another, yes they do.  But my point is really this,
ancient culture were highly isolated in ways that we cannot imagine.  When
you have to walk everywhere, when there is no radio, television, newspaper,
etc., a regional difference of only a few miles can result in language
differences as great as those between the United States and the United
Kingdom.
(By the way, I don't think that their use of "boot" could be the result of a
late migration from England.  But I never was able to track down the reason
for that useage.)
Sincerely,
Michael Abernathy
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk at qaya.org>
To: "Michael Abernathy" <mabernathy at isot.com>
Cc: "B-Hebrew" <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2004 2:33 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] exodus, dating of linguistics


> On 29/05/2004 12:38, Michael Abernathy wrote:
>
> >Peter,
> >I admit that there is more conformity to a written language; however, in
the
> >English language you continue to find a great deal of diversity in
spelling
> >until Webster published a standard dictionary for us to use. ...
> >
>
> Well, yes, but there is a considerable variety of spelling in the Hebrew
> Bible, and the form which we have is probably the result of some later
> partial standardisation.
>
> >... I believe you
> >also find that the written language varied considerably until we had the
> >standards of Shakespeare, the printed Bible, and finally a printed
grammar.
> >Prior to these, the written language reflected the dialect. ...
> >
>
> Well, yes, prior to the establishment of a literary norm there was
> considerable variability. But once it was established there was much
> more uniformity, in both Hebrew and English, and many other languages
> for that matter. The standard form of a Bible probably had something to
> do with the establishment of uniformity, in both cases as it certainly
> did also in German.
>
> >... Even now,
> >regional differences can be seen in both written and spoken English.  For
> >example, a small region of southern Ohio refers to the rear storage
> >compartment of a car as a "boot." ...
> >
>
> As everywhere (as far as I know) in the UK. This is certainly an
> interesting regional variation, perhaps indicating late migration from
> Britain to that area. But would a native of this region use "boot" in a
> written work intended for national circulation? Probably not, as they
> would be aware that this is not the most widespread usage.
>
> >... Almost everywhere else in the country, it
> >is a "trunk."  I believe it is the same area of the country that
universally
> >calls every soft drink a "pop."  Their neighbors to the east and the west
> >refer to it as a "soda" or a "soda pop."  Given any isolation in time or
> >geography, I expect that we should find that locals used a different
> >vocabulary and when they used the same words spelled those words
> >phonetically according to the local pronunciation.
> >Sincerely,
> >Michael Abernathy
> >I am ready to believe that the Hebrew Bible helped them develop a
consistent
> >use for the language.
> >
> >
> >
> Indeed, I have no doubt of this. But it does not imply a single editor
> or a small school of editors as you first suggested. One possible model
> is that the first few books were indeed from such a single source, and
> that later books were written in imitation of the style of these early
> books, which quickly became established as a stylistic model at least
> for this kind of genre.
>
> -- 
> Peter Kirk
> peter at qaya.org (personal)
> peterkirk at qaya.org (work)
> http://www.qaya.org/
>




More information about the b-hebrew mailing list