[b-hebrew] A Jewish perspective on reading biblical hebrew
dwashbur at nyx.net
Fri Nov 26 00:37:15 EST 2004
On Thursday 25 November 2004 19:15, Uri Hurwitz wrote:
> Dave Washburn <dwashbur at nyx.net> wrote:
> "..... But as you may have gathered from this
> board, the perfect/imperfect thing doesn't exactly work, either. We're
> fairly sure that BH isn't tensed, but it doesn't really seem to be
> aspectual, either. That's why many of us are engaged in ongoing research,
> trying to figure out exactly what it is (at the moment, we can only tell
> you what it isn't). "
> -- Now the mystery really deepens: if the above is correct, how could this
> language have been in use for thousands of years, been translated to
> practically every written language; how could commentators delude
> themselves they understaood it -- since the the days of the Dead Sea
> Scrolls at least, if its very basic verbal system defies comprehension?
Sarcasm doesn't get us anywhere. If you have it all figured out, let's hear
it. We know what doesn't work. Feel free to show us what does work - for
every instance, not just a pet few that seem to support a pet theory.
And of course, our problem here in the 21st century is that the language in
its Tanak form died out nearly 2,000 years ago.
As for translations, they are approximate and frequently don't agree with each
other for those very reasons.
Oh yes, and the amazing diversity of opinions in the commentaries hardly
supports the idea that anybody really understands it completely. So thanks
for making my point.
"No good. Hit on head." -Gronk
More information about the b-hebrew