[b-hebrew] Re: b-hebrew Digest, Vol 28, Issue 30

Heard, Christopher Christopher.Heard at pepperdine.edu
Sun May 1 19:06:16 EDT 2005


John,

Try this post from the list some time ago:
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2003-December/016804.html

Chris H.

On May 1, 2005, at 4:05 PM, John Gray wrote:

> I wonder if someone may be so kind as to refer me to somewhere I can
> understand how Hebrew is transliterated into "English"alphabet,  as  
> used in
> the latest post - John Gray
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <b-hebrew-request at lists.ibiblio.org>
> To: <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 2:00 AM
> Subject: b-hebrew Digest, Vol 28, Issue 30
>
>
>
>> Send b-hebrew mailing list submissions to
>> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> b-hebrew-request at lists.ibiblio.org
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> b-hebrew-owner at lists.ibiblio.org
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of b-hebrew digest..."
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>>    1. Punishment for sins "Samuel" (tladatsi at charter.net)
>>    2. PQD in English in 1 Sam 15  (tladatsi at charter.net)
>>    3. Re: The mystery of vav-consequtive (Rolf Furuli)
>>    4. Re: Why Semitic languages had no written vowels? (Peter Kirk)
>>    5. Re: How does the eagle become new? (Peter Kirk)
>>    6. Re: The mystery of vav-consequtive (Vadim Cherny)
>>    7. Re: Why Semitic languages had no written vowels? (Vadim Cherny)
>>    8. Re: Why Semitic languages had no written vowels? (Vadim Cherny)
>>    9. Punishment and  book of Samuel (wattswestmaas)
>>   10. Re: Why Semitic languages had no written vowels? (Vadim Cherny)
>>   11. Re: Why Semitic languages had no written vowels? (Trevor  
>> Peterson)
>>   12. Re: Hebrew spelling (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman)
>>   13. The mystery of vav-consequtive (David Roth)
>>   14. New version of Westminster Leningrad Codex (WLC) of 20 Apr
>>       2005 now available. (Christopher V. Kimball)
>>   15. Grammatical extension of Magnanimity??? (wattswestmaas)
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>> -
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 4:50:38 +0000
>> From: <tladatsi at charter.net>
>> Subject: [b-hebrew] Punishment for sins "Samuel"
>> To: <wattswestmaas at eircom.net>
>> Cc: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
>> Message-ID: <41dmfb$q7jmns at mxip06a.cluster1.charter.net>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>>
>> Chris,
>>
>> Way back when, the original question, or challange posed
>> was: *were there any examples in the OT of later
>> generations being punished for the sins of an earlier
>> generation (sins of the father being visited on the
>> children)* as described in Ex 34:7. I offered these two
>> examples (1 Sam 15 and 2 Sam 21) were this occurred.
>>
>> I did not claim that this punishment was *unjust* or *
>> unfair* or question the ethics or equity of punishing later
>> generations for the actions of earlier generations in any
>> way.  I merely say that that these two stories are examples
>> of this sort of punishment.
>>
>> Jack Tladatsi
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 5:53:35 +0000
>> From: <tladatsi at charter.net>
>> Subject: [b-hebrew] PQD in English in 1 Sam 15
>> To: <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
>> Message-ID: <41dmfb$q7n541 at mxip06a.cluster1.charter.net>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>>
>> The thrust of the story of 1 Sam 15 is that Ameleq fought
>> with Isreal when Moses lead Isreal out of Egypt.  This
>> created sin that was unatoned.  Two hundred years later,
>> God decided it was time to settle the score.  God commands
>> Saul (through Samuel) to attack and kill every single
>> member of the Ameleq tribe in their city.  God is dis-
>> satisfied with the status quo and takes the initiative to
>> bring things into balance.  1 Sam 15:2 reads
>>
>> e&-r$) le) r&yl qelm( h&( -r$) te) yTdqP tw)bc hwhy rm)hK
>>  .eyrcMm wtl(B jrDB  wl
>>
>> How do we translate *paqadetiy*?  I will punish, I will
>> visit iniquity upon, I will settle accounts, I will pay
>> attention to, I will charge guilt, I have remembered, I
>> have marked, I have considered - are all options that have
>> been offered.  Does changing the translation of the this
>> one verb change the general thrust of the story any?
>>
>> In my opinion it does not.  In the story God wants justice
>> for the sin of Ameleq against Isreal. The sin creates a
>> debt to God that has not been paid. Whether it is 2 years
>> old or 200 years old does not matter.  The way to *settle
>> the books* (NLT's translation) is to kill all of Ameleq,
>> from old men to infants as well as destory their goods.
>>
>> No matter how *paqadetiy* is translated, the point of the
>> story is the same.  If you sin against God, you will create
>> a debt to God that someone must pay. That may be you, or it
>> may be your decendants or it may be your compatriots. It
>> may be now  or it may be many generations later. This is
>> the same perspective in 2 Sam 21 (where the verb pkd was
>> not used).
>>
>> Having said all of the above, punish seems to be the most
>> direct translation in the context of this story.
>>
>> Jack Tladatsi
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 3
>> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 08:13:11 +0200
>> From: Rolf Furuli <furuli at online.no>
>> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] The mystery of vav-consequtive
>> To: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
>> Message-ID: <42707EF7.2020207 at online.no>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>>
>> Dear Ken,
>>
>> I agree with you regarding Sperber's conclusions, and I mention  
>> this in
>> my dissertation as well.  The primary advantage of Sperber's  
>> grammar for
>> the student of Hebrew verbs, is that the author presents so much data
>> from the Hebrew Bible that contradicts the standard thinking.  The
>> second advantage is that he draws conclusions that contradict the
>> established tradition.  We should not study the sources in order  
>> to find
>> conclusions that we can adopt.  But we should study the data material
>> and test the conclusions.
>>
>> I agree with you that Cook and Smith are worth reading.  
>> Nontheless, Cook
>> does not disinguish between past reference/past tense and future
>> reference/future tense, something which in my view is a flaw and  
>> which
>> can question his conclusions. Smith's conclusions are based on the
>> presupposition that imperfect consecutive do exist and that
>> prefix-forms+waw in the cognate languages can be interpreted as
>> "converted" imperfects rather than as imperfects with the conjunction
>> waw prefixed.  This is of course questionable, and therefore his
>> conclusions regarding the existence of particular examples are  
>> less than
>> certain.
>>
>> Another important source is L. McFall: "The Enigma of the Hebrew  
>> Verbal
>> System" (1982). Sheffield:The Almond Press.  The author outlines the
>> different views regarding consecutive imperfect from the Masortes  
>> and up
>> to 1954. All the different data he presents show the shaky  
>> foundation of
>> the waw consecutive hypothesis.
>>
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>> Rolf Furuli
>> University of Oslo
>>
>> Ken Penner wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Rolf wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> In addition to Cook and Smith, who give much insight into the
>>>> issue, I
>>>> recommend A. Sperber: "A Historical Grammar of Biblical
>>>> Hebrew". 1966: E. J.
>>>> Brill.  Reading Sperber will help against circularity and  
>>>> traditional
>>>> thinking.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> You seriously recommend Sperber's work? Certainly it is an  
>>> example of
>>> non-traditional thinking! Granted, I use it for the primary data
>>>
> collected
>
>>> there, but not for his conclusions regarding the historical  
>>> development
>>>
> of
>
>>> Hebrew, especially its tenses. He certainly would not have agreed  
>>> with
>>>
> your
>
>>> aspect-based system, would he? IIRC, he saw two distinct dialects  
>>> each
>>>
> with
>
>>> one "tense", and when the literary output of these two dialects  
>>> merged
>>>
> (in
>
>>> the Biblical literature), it appeared that there were two  
>>> "tenses." I
>>>
> think
>
>>> we've come a long way since he formulated these ideas.
>>>
>>> Ken Penner
>>> McMaster/Hebrew
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 4
>> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 12:31:19 +0100
>> From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk at qaya.org>
>> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Why Semitic languages had no written vowels?
>> To: Kevin Riley <klriley at alphalink.com.au>
>> Cc: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
>> Message-ID: <4270C987.8010205 at qaya.org>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>>
>> On 28/04/2005 01:38, Kevin Riley wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The suggestion that the vowels may have been left out specifically
>>>
> because
>
>>> they were variable is a good suggestion also. If the Canaanite  
>>> dialects
>>>
> were
>
>>> like most modern languages [Arabic is a good example] then it is  
>>> likely
>>>
> that
>
>>> the consonants differed in predictable ways but not necessarily the
>>>
> vowels. ...
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> This may be true of Arabic, and it may have been true of the  
>> Canaanite
>> dialects which were the immediate ancestors of Arabic as well as  
>> Hebrew,
>> but is it really true of "most modern languages"? My impression,  
>> based
>> on knowledge of Indo-European and Turkic as well as Semitic  
>> languages,
>> is that in most languages (although Semitic languages may be a  
>> partial
>> exception) vowel phonemes are no less distinctive and no less stable
>> than consonant phonemes.
>>
>> Note that even in Arabic there is considerable variation in
>> pronunciation of certain consonants, e.g. jim (gim, in Egypt etc cf.
>> Hebrew gimel from which it is derived) and qof.
>>
>> -- 
>> Peter Kirk
>> peter at qaya.org (personal)
>> peterkirk at qaya.org (work)
>> http://www.qaya.org/
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>> Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.4 - Release Date:  
>> 27/04/2005
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 5
>> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 12:42:07 +0100
>> From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk at qaya.org>
>> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] How does the eagle become new?
>> To: Deborah Millier <deborahmillier at yahoo.com>
>> Cc: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
>> Message-ID: <4270CC0F.3080808 at qaya.org>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
>>
>> On 28/04/2005 03:42, Deborah Millier wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Dear List Members,
>>>
>>>
>>> TIT:XAD"$   KANE$ER   N:(W.RFY:KIY
>>>
>>> ". . .your youth becomes new like the eagle" (Psa.
>>> 103:5).
>>>
>>>
>>> The one addressed is the writer's NEPE$, I see that.
>>> But I can't find a satisfying point of comparison
>>> between NEPE$ and NE$ER, save the near transposition
>>> of letters.  :-)
>>>
>>> How does an (the?) eagle become new, hence a NEPE$'s
>>> youth become new?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> It is literally "the eagle" with the Hebrew article - you have  
>> omitted
>> the dageshes which confirm this in your transcription. But presumably
>> "the eagle" in the sense of a typical individual eagle, rather than a
>> specific bird.
>>
>> I think this is a good example of how Hebrew poetry, and indeed  
>> poetry
>> in any language, needs to be appreciated rather than analysed. For
>> surely the general message of this is obvious, even if strict  
>> logic is
>> not observed. But if you need to analyse it, as you might for
>> translation, I would suggest that here we really have two interleaved
>> sentences: "your youth will be renewed, you will become like an  
>> eagle".
>> An alternative with a subtly different meaning, which I found in a
>> translation, might be "you will be renewed, you will become like a  
>> young
>> eagle".
>>
>> -- 
>> Peter Kirk
>> peter at qaya.org (personal)
>> peterkirk at qaya.org (work)
>> http://www.qaya.org/
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>> Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.4 - Release Date:  
>> 27/04/2005
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 6
>> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 15:04:14 +0300
>> From: "Vadim Cherny" <VadimCherny at mail.ru>
>> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] The mystery of vav-consequtive
>> To: "Evgeny Ivanov" <evi7538 at yahoo.com>, <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
>> Message-ID: <004f01c54beb$26d3f530$801ea8c0 at Vadim>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>
>> That's all scholasticism. Waw denotes the PT-FT tense shift.  
>> Later, a new
>> grammatical structure (based on imperative) replaced it for the  
>> future
>> tense, and wa- appeared as a symmetrical FT-PT shift instrument.  
>> Quite
>> often, translators twist the waw to comply with preconceived meaning,
>> creating these ideas of enigmatic and complex usage of waw, which is
>>
> rather
>
>> straightforward.
>>
>> Vadim Cherny
>>
>>
>>
>>> I was thinking recently about the mystery of vav-consequtive. My
>>>
>> understandning is that the first imperfect verb brings the  
>> reference point
>> in time to the event of that first action, and then all  
>> consequtive verbs
>> would be in the future as seen from that reference point in time.  
>> This is
>>
> a
>
>> different sense of time compared to modern languages.
>>
>>>
>>> Traditionally the imperfect verbs in vav-consequtive form are  
>>> translated
>>>
>> as perfect. However, if the above understanding of vav-consequtive is
>> correct, the actual  time of their action with respect to the present
>>
> moment
>
>> is unknow. It is unknown whether the action has been finished by  
>> now, or
>>
> it
>
>> is still going to be finished. The only thing known for sure is  
>> that the
>> action was not finished at the moment of the first action in the
>> vav-consequtive sentence. So the form of the verbs (and time of  
>> actions)
>>
> in
>
>> vav-consequtive form would rather be determined by exegesis and  
>> context.
>>
>>>
>>> For example, in Genesis 2.1-2.3 the actions are translated in  
>>> perfect
>>>
>> form: "And the heaven and earth were finished". However, literal
>>
> translation
>
>> would rather be that they are not finished at the time when the  
>> action of
>> the first verb in the vav-chain happened (which is probably  
>> Gen1.1), but
>> it's unknown whether they are finished by the present moment or not.
>>
>>>
>>> Would you agree with this understandidng of vav-consequtive  
>>> phenomenon?
>>>
>>>
>>> Shalom,
>>> Evgeny
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> __________________________________________________
>>> Do You Yahoo!?
>>> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>>> http://mail.yahoo.com
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 7
>> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 15:13:19 +0300
>> From: "Vadim Cherny" <VadimCherny at mail.ru>
>> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Why Semitic languages had no written vowels?
>> To: "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk at qaya.org>
>> Cc: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
>> Message-ID: <009101c54bed$531d03f0$801ea8c0 at Vadim>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> мÑfка as flour is a new word. The original root is min - mon  
>>>> - mok -
>>>>
> muk.
>
>> I'm
>>
>>>> not an expert in Russian linguistics, but the root is the same  
>>>> "min" as
>>>>
>> in
>>
>>>> Ñ?азминаÑ,ÑO (make softer). мÑfка as torment is from  
>>>> mit - mot
>>>>
> root, as in
>
>>>> мÑfÑ,иÑ,ÑO.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you. But the age and derivation of these words is irrelevant.
>>>
>>
>> Irrelevant?? What is a value of an example of mutated words?
>>
>>
>>>> There is a huge difference between unmarked stress and vowels.
>>>> Unmarked stress differentiation appeared in highly developed  
>>>> language
>>>>
>> with
>>
>>>> fluent speakers, while unmarked vowels should be suitable for  
>>>> humans
>>>>
> just
>
>>>> beginning to talk.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Are you talking about children? Or are you claiming that the  
>>> Hebrews and
>>> other Semites of the biblical period had only just evolved to a  
>>> level of
>>> intelligence at which they were able to talk?
>>>
>>
>> Speech is a physical ability, not directly related to  
>> intelligence. Early
>> humans had limited speech abilities.
>>
>> What it all boils to, is that dropping vowels in writing is highly
>>
> unlikely.
>
>> Not impossible, but bizarre, meaningless, and unlikely. In the end,
>>
> nothing
>
>> is impossible. But if the earliest Semitic speakers had diversified
>>
> vowels,
>
>> it is highly implausible that they omitted them in writing.
>>
>> And I suggest a mechanism of a single vowel sound plausibly  
>> evolving into
>> all modern vowels.
>>
>> Vadim Cherny
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 8
>> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 15:38:17 +0300
>> From: "Vadim Cherny" <VadimCherny at mail.ru>
>> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Why Semitic languages had no written vowels?
>> To: "Kevin Riley" <klriley at alphalink.com.au>,
>> <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
>> Message-ID: <009e01c54bef$75713eb0$801ea8c0 at Vadim>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>
>> Vowel variation between languages cannot plausibly explain absence of
>> written vowels. By this token, definite article should be omitted,  
>> too,
>> since it is different in Hebrew and Aramaic.
>>
>> Modern languages generally omit the vowels (usually only allophones)
>> non-essential semantically.
>> Few people comfortably read shorthand writing, and those people have
>>
> highly
>
>> developed reading abilities. This was not the case with ancients. The
>>
> better
>
>> analogy for them is students - for whom even Hebrew books add vowels.
>>
>> A major reason for vowelless shorthand writing in modern languages is
>>
> great
>
>> suprasufficiency of consonants. You wouldn't mistake a root  
>> dffclt, though
>> still open to various readings. But Semitic short roots are less
>>
> comfotrable
>
>> vowelless.
>>
>> While we cannot definitely rule out or prove some explanation, we can
>> consider it plausible or not. Shorthand writing is quite  
>> implausible. It
>>
> is
>
>> more advanced stage of writing, not suitable for primitive people.
>>
>> Vadim Cherny
>>
>>
>>
>>> The suggestion that the vowels may have been left out specifically
>>>
> because
>
>>> they were variable is a good suggestion also. If the Canaanite  
>>> dialects
>>>
>> were
>>
>>> like most modern languages [Arabic is a good example] then it is  
>>> likely
>>>
>> that
>>
>>> the consonants differed in predictable ways but not necessarily the
>>>
>> vowels.
>>
>>> As, in context, the vowels for any dialect could be supplied with a
>>> reasonable degree of accuracy, writing them may have actually been a
>>> disadvantage. I am not convinced that having a grapheme that may  
>>> have
>>> multiple pronunciations is in any way an advance on not having a
>>>
> grapheme
>
>> at
>>
>>> all. There are still modern languages which do not indicate all the
>>>
>> vowels,
>>
>>> or fail to distinguish between different vowels, as they are  
>>> predictable
>>> from context.  Which shows that even people who usually write  
>>> vowels do
>>>
>> not
>>
>>> feel the need to write them just because they exist.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 9
>> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 13:42:19 +0100
>> From: "wattswestmaas" <wattswestmaas at eircom.net>
>> Subject: [b-hebrew] Punishment and  book of Samuel
>> To: "B-Hebrew" <b-hebrew at lists.Ibiblio.org>
>> Message-ID: <FAEIIKJEKGHNGLFNMDBCMELNCDAA.wattswestmaas at eircom.net>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>
>> HALLO GEORGE, YOU WROTE::
>> =============================================================
>> Chris said -----  You state "you can not possibly know the crimes  
>> that
>>
> were
>
>> being committed
>> by the Amalekites at this stage" and "HOW MANY ISRAELITES DO YOU  
>> THINK .
>> . . ."  This is all supposition.  All we know is what the writer
>> presented in the text.  This is the picture he wished for us to  
>> have.  We
>> can make all of the suppositions we want, but these aren't worth  
>> the time
>> it takes to write this.
>>
>> george
>> gfsomsel
>> =============================================================
>>
>> RESPONSE FROM CHRIS:
>>
>> George, firstly it is already a supposition for some that INNOCENT  
>> people
>> are punished for the sins of the fathers -- Then to support this  
>> with the
>> situations in Samuel.  I am bringing in other LOGICAL variables to  
>> suppose
>> that this is not what it seems. FOR EXAMPLE:  we are told that  
>> Moses slew
>>
> an
>
>> Egyptian, right?  WHY?  What led him to do that?  How many times  
>> had he
>>
> seen
>
>> other Israelites beaten by Egyptian task masters.  What struggles and
>> thoughts and inner wranglings had led up to this precise moment in  
>> time?
>> All this is jolly good suposition based upon an understanding of  
>> human
>> nature.  We have every possibility to paint a portrait of Moses's
>>
> emotional
>
>> turmoil that he MUST have experienced for a few years or a few  
>> months.  If
>> we follow your line of reasoning and portray Moses ONLY from what the
>>
> writer
>
>> has told us then we are truly left with a very strange character  
>> indeed.
>>
> He
>
>> is a prince, he kills an egyptian. that is rather dull.
>>
>> There are NO WRITTEN RECORDS that tell us why the norsemen harrassed
>> Ireland. BUT with careful analysis of their way of life and  
>> culture that
>> reason can be very accurately SUPPOSED.
>>
>>
>> Best regards, chris. Ireland
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 10
>> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 15:49:05 +0300
>> From: "Vadim Cherny" <VadimCherny at mail.ru>
>> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Why Semitic languages had no written vowels?
>> To: "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph at email.com>, "Hebrew"
>> <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
>> Message-ID: <00a301c54bf0$b0491160$801ea8c0 at Vadim>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>>
>> Karl,
>>
>> We discussed it several times, and you know that I disagree  
>> completely.
>> I taught speed reading years ago, a sort of reading few thousands
>>
> (actually,
>
>> almost hundred thousand in one case) words per minute, and found  
>> out that
>> people understand text when they remember just 2-3% of it, and  
>> 25-27% is
>> subjectively considered "photographic."
>> When you speak about few ambiguities, you imply that the text is
>> understandable. But you cannot distinguish piel from paal.
>>
>> Vadim Cherny
>>
>>
>>> Likewise, a native speaker in ancient Hebrew could read fluently  
>>> with
>>>
> few
>
>> ambiguities a vowelless text.
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 11
>> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 09:20:53 -0400
>> From: "Trevor Peterson" <abuian at access4less.net>
>> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Why Semitic languages had no written vowels?
>> To: <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
>> Message-ID: <4270e335.58.6c8.10904 at access4less.net>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>
>> ----- Original Message Follows -----
>> From: "UUC" <unikom_ug at mail.ru>
>> To: "Trevor Peterson" <abuian at access4less.net>,
>> <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
>> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Why Semitic languages had no written
>> vowels?
>> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 15:42:50 +0300
>>
>>
>>> I don't exclude that some vowelless script predates
>>> cuneiform. I know this is an unorthodox view. But we have
>>> too little epigraphic material to be certain otherwise.
>>>
>>
>> True, but we do have epigraphic West Semitic, and its
>> derivation from Egyptian is fairly well established. If our
>> comparatively significant body of evidence for Egyptian and
>> cuneiform script development makes it nearly impossible to
>> say which came first, then it seems like a stretch to
>> suppose that West Semitic script predates either one. But
>> even if it did originate before, why wouldn't they have
>> chosen a different writing system as the language changed?
>> If Ugaritic was being written side-by-side with logosyllabic
>> Akkadian, and as you say at this point the vowels were
>> differentiated, why would they not have been inspired to
>> write vowels? It seems to me that your theory requires an
>> explanation of this point. If a vowelless writing system can
>> only be explained by an absence of vowel differentiation,
>> then significant phonemic differentiation of vowels would
>> have created enormous pressure to adapt the writing system.
>> And the contact with cuneiform would have compounded this
>> pressure, because it was clearly evident that a writing
>> system could accommodate vowels. Indeed, Ugaritic script
>> does seem to have been influenced by cuneiform in its
>> wedge-formation. So why not orthographic modifications?
>> Vowel writing did eventually develop in the form of matres
>> lectionis, but in Phoenician, for instance, it never seems
>> to have caught on. Why not, if it is so inconceivable that a
>> vowelless writing system would work for a language that
>> differentiates vowels?
>>
>>
>>> Also, cuneiform is reasonably developed writing. Syllabic
>>> cuneiform, at any rate, is quite late.
>>>
>>
>> Quite late with reference to what? The origin of language?
>> If that's the issue, we don't have any evidence of writing
>> that goes back anywhere near the beginning.
>>
>> Trevor Peterson
>> CUA/Semitics
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 12
>> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 09:16:01 -0400 (EDT)
>> From: "Dr. Joel M. Hoffman" <joel at exc.com>
>> Subject: [b-hebrew] Re: Hebrew spelling
>> To: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
>> Message-ID: <m1DR8s5-000GhjC at exc.com>
>>
>>
>>> Um, I have to squawk a bit here; the KH ending of the DSS is the  
>>> oldest
>>>
> form
>
>>> we have, since the K- ending in "Biblical Hebrew" is found in the
>>>
> medieval
>
>>> Masoretic manuscripts and we don't have a clue which spelling
>>>
> predominated
>
>>> in, say pre-exilic Hebrew writing.  So it is possible that the DSS
>>>
> spelling
>
>>> is in fact the older one and the short version is the "late  
>>> invention."
>>>
> It's
>
>>> also possible that the DSS spelling is an artificial invention to  
>>> aid in
>>> pronunciation; the scrolls include many variations in spelling  
>>> that seem
>>>
> to
>
>>> be designed for just such a purpose.  So comparing DSS Hebrew to
>>>
> "Biblical
>
>>> Hebrew" (i.e. Masoretic Hebrew) doesn't get us anywhere in terms of
>>>
> dating
>
>>> texts.
>>>
>>
>> Again, yes and no.
>>
>> Yes, we have to be careful, becuase, as we both know, we don't have
>> any substantial mss. from before the DSS.  (Indeed, it is one of my
>> frustrations that so much "academic" work wrongly equates Masoretic
>> Hebrew with biblical Hebrew.)
>>
>> But no, because:
>>
>> 1.  Not all of the DSS are written in what most people call "DSS
>>     Hebrew."  The biblical material tends to be written in the older
>>     script and with the older (canonical, a.k.a Masoretic) spelling.
>>     That is, while we frequently see -KH as a suffix in the
>>     non-biblical DSS, we seldom see it, for example, in 11Q1
>>     ("PaleoLev"), we find a text remarkably close to the Masoretic
>>     text.
>>
>> 2.  The sort of changes that we see from Biblical Hebrew to Late
>>     Biblical Hebrew to DSS Hebrew to Rabbinic Hebrew are exactly the
>>     same sort of changes we see in Modern Hebrew.  There seems to be
>>     something natural about the progression.
>>
>> So while I suppose it's possible that the DSS-ites wrote Leviticus  
>> and
>> other biblical material with new spelling, and then wrote their
>> commentaries on it in an older spelling (and in so doing went in the
>> opposite direction of Modern Hebrew), it seems exceedingly unlikely.
>>
>> -Joel
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 13
>> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 09:36:39 -0400
>> From: David Roth <daroth at JTSA.EDU>
>> Subject: [b-hebrew] The mystery of vav-consequtive
>> To: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
>> Message-ID: <000201c54bf7$4ea86030$0302a8c0 at W2KLAP>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>>
>> Peter Kirk quoted Rolf Furuli:
>>
>>> ... On the basis of years of textual studies, he was able to show  
>>> that
>>> the authors of Biblia Hebraica in many cases had changed the Hebrew
>>> text in order to conform with their grammatical views (we find the
>>> same in the apparatus of BHS regarding weyiqtols in "wrong" places
>>> etc.). ...
>>>
>>
>> And commented:
>> Are you, or Sperber, claiming that there are cases where the BHS  
>> authors
>> have departed from the text (rather than the apparatus) of their base
>> manuscript, Leningradensis, to conform to grammatical views? That  
>> is a
>> grave charge - at least if it applies to cases where  
>> Leningradensis is
>> clear, rather than where it is damaged and a reconstruction must be
>> made.
>>
>>
>> Sperber is referring to Biblia Hebraica (either 1 or 2), but  
>> certainly not
>>
> BHS.   Notice that Rolf Furuli cites "Biblia Hebraica" (as opposed  
> to the
> BHS apparatus, on which he comments later) regarding Sperber's claim
> (whether they emend the text "inside" or suggest emendations in the  
> notes,
> his point is the same: that their preconceived grammatical  
> assumptions lead
> them to deny the evidence before them (the actual text), rather than
> deriving the grammar from the data).  I believe the difference  
> between the
> early BH (1-2) and BHK (Kittel) and BHS is that the latter two are  
> meant to
> be diplomatic representations of the Leningrad Codex.
>
>>
>> To give just one example that I remember (correctly, I hope) from
>>
> Professor Sperber's work, he gives example after example of cases  
> where 'el
> and `al seem to have identical meanings, thus arguing against  
> emending `al
> to 'el when the meaning is clearly "to."  It seems that Rolf Furuli is
> pointing out that a suggested emendation in the notes may have the  
> same
> methodological problems that Sperber noticed in BH; he does not  
> seem to be
> implying any dishonesty or misrepresentation on the part of the BHS  
> editors.
>
>>
>> Since you mention Kirk Lowery's work with the electronic text of
>>
> Leningradensis, can anyone point to a statement of purpose for the  
> project?
> I have a couple of questions about it:
>
>> 1) Will it include the Masorah?
>> 2) Will this version have the rafe marks (it seems that any  
>> diplomatic
>>
> representation of L should have these).  It would be fairly easy to  
> remove
> them automatically for those who find them to be annoying.
>
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> David Roth
>>
>> P.S. Anyone happen to have any second-hand copies of Sperber's works
>>
> they'd like to sell at a reasonable price?
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 14
>> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 11:38:53 -0400
>> From: "Christopher V. Kimball" <mail at cvkimball.com>
>> Subject: [b-hebrew] New version of Westminster Leningrad Codex (WLC)
>> of 20 Apr 2005 now available.
>> To: b-hebrew <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>, "Christopher V. Kimball"
>> <mail at cvkimball.com>
>> Message-ID: <4271038D.3050105 at cvkimball.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>>
>>
>> Professor Lowery has graciously provided an updated version of the
>> Westminster Leningrad Codex (WLC), wlc43-20050420.txt.  The  
>> Unicode/XML
>> transcription of the WLC at
>>
>> http://www.cvkimball.com/Tanach/Tanach.xml .
>>
>> has been updated from the new version.  As always, changes often  
>> induce
>> errors. Let me know if you have problems.
>>
>> A number of derivative works have been made from the site.  These  
>> works
>> should include both the WLC date and the XML date, as defined in the
>> "Technical" link, to avoid later confusion of versions.
>>
>> Chris Kimball
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 15
>> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 16:54:48 +0100
>> From: "wattswestmaas" <wattswestmaas at eircom.net>
>> Subject: [b-hebrew] Grammatical extension of Magnanimity???
>> To: "B-Hebrew" <b-hebrew at lists.Ibiblio.org>
>> Message-ID: <FAEIIKJEKGHNGLFNMDBCKELOCDAA.wattswestmaas at eircom.net>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>
>> I really can not remember who what or where, it is just one of those
>> thoughts that seem to pop up by asociation for some reason (that  
>> or old
>> age)!  Anyway my question is this:  Is there any truth in this  
>> statement
>> that -- 'JaH (as in yod heh and not the name of God) prefixed to a  
>> noun or
>> suffixed(?) can be seen as a grammatical extension of  
>> magnanimity'?  If
>>
> this
>
>> is totaly stupid please forgive me but I am sure that I read this
>>
> somewhere
>
>> in some rabbinical literature.
>>
>> Thankyou,  Chris Watts.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> b-hebrew mailing list
>> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>>
>> End of b-hebrew Digest, Vol 28, Issue 30
>> ****************************************
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>

--
R. Christopher Heard
Assistant Professor of Religion
Pepperdine University
Malibu, California 90263-4352
http://faculty.pepperdine.edu/cheard
http://www.iTanakh.org
http://www.semioticsandexegesis.info



More information about the b-hebrew mailing list