Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re[2]: targums (Peter)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: peter_kirk AT sil.org
  • To: <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re[2]: targums (Peter)
  • Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 22:02:18 -0400


Point taken about changes in English. So let's look at a different
example which you just brought up when you wrote: "Compare the Latin
of Ovid with that of Suetonius and tell me how much difference there
actually is."

If I've got my facts right, Latin was the common language of the
people of Rome in Ovid's time (late 1st century BCE) and in Suetonius'
time (early 2nd century CE). The actual language didn't change much.
So we conclude that Latin was the common language in Rome throughout
the 1st century CE? Wrong! Latin was, I understand, largely displaced
by Greek duing the early 1st century, but then revived (as a matter of
public policy) towards the end of the century. If that left an effect
on Latin, it was not apparently a profound one; on the contrary,
perhaps Latin changed relatively little precisely because it was not
in active use.

I think that you, Jack and others on this subject need to do a proper
study of sociolinguistics before trying to come to conclusions on
language use in Palestine or elsewhere in any past centuries. You have
a good understanding of loan words etc, but there is a lot more than
that to the subject.

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Re: targums (Peter)
Author: mc2499 AT mclink.it at internet
Date: 17/05/1999 16:13


Dear Peter,

At 18.08 17/05/99 -0400, peter_kirk AT sil.org wrote:
>You wrote: "If we are dealing with texts from both periods, why can't
>one generalise over the time between them?" Precisely because you
>don't know what happened in between. Suppose you had documents in
>English from Edward the Confessor and documents in English from
>Richard II, but nothing in between.

You should know of course that there was an enormous difference between the
English of the time of Edward the Confessor and that of Richard II:
something must have happened. However between the DSS varieties and that of
Murabba'at we don't have anything dramatic in the way of change between the
"Mishnaic Hebrew" of the Copper scroll and MMT and that of the ben Kosebah
texts.

>By your method, you would assume
>that English was used for the whole of the intervening period. But it
>wasn't. Similarly, if the language situation in Maccabean and late
>Roman times was similar, it doesn't mean that the time in between was
>uniform.

This is the nice thing about linguistic continuity. If something happens
linguistically at one time it's effects will remain in some way in a later
time. You can look at English and identify the Old Norse influences on the
language, the Norman French influences and the later French influences. You
can say that words ending with "-age" that finish like village came in with
the Norman French, but words like barrage came in much later. The effects
of linguistic events can be seen despite not having them on record.

Despite small changes in time, I don't think such changes are visible
between the two series of texts (perhaps I should say between the few
exemplars of the Mishnaic dialect line and Murabba'at), so I think we can
say that there have been no noticeable new influences.


Ian





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page