[b-hebrew] A Jewish perspective on reading biblical hebrew

Dave Washburn 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.


Dave Washburn
"No good.  Hit on head."   -Gronk

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list