Biblical Hebrew Forum

[peter_kirk AT sil.org]

But analogies can be a good tool for argument, under the right 
circumstances. Suppose I have alternative hypothetical development 
histories A and B for the development of Hebrew, or for anything else 
for that matter, and I cannot decide between them for lack of 
evidence. If I can find 100 good, well-documented analogies for 
histroy A and none for history B, it does suggest a general rule that 
histories like A do occur and histories like B do not. Well, Hebrew 
just could be unique, but to me this would be quite strong evidence 
for history A and not history B.

So please can I make another plea that participants in such debates 
study sociolinguistics, especially the patterns found not only in 
better documented ancient languages (such as Stephen's examples) but 
also in modern ones. This can help them to see, and understand the 
reasons, which types of histories are common, and which types of 
histories just do not occur in the real world.

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Re: The Latin analogy (Stephen)
Author:  mc2499 AT mclink.it at internet
Date:    22/05/1999 13:50


Dear Stephen,

Thanks for showing that I need to elucidate my thought on the use of the 
analogy between Latin and DSS Hebrew.

At 22.54 21/05/99 -0400, Stephen C. Carlson wrote: 
>I'm not sure why you're so resistant to the analogy.

I have no real problem with the analogy, other than the fact that analogies 
aren't really tools for argument, but for clarification. In the case of the 
analogy between Latin and DSS Hebrew the facts are not known for Hebrew, so
it is not a case of clarification, but of imputing what those facts should be.

And you will note in all your further analogies below that there is a 
rather long period involved in the development of the tradition leading to 
the fossilisation of the language involved. None of this is the case with 
DSS Hebrew. We are dealing with a much smaller timescale and a total lack 
of bureaucratic superstructure and schooling implied by all the examples 
you have proffered. When the analogy is tested against the information we 
have, it proves to be unsound. Languages don't become formal overnight and 
there is nothing to indicate that DSS Hebrew was formal. In fact, the 
opposite seems to be the case -- quite an informal mixture of linguistic 
elements, with old things preserved and new things absorbed, while the 
closest thing to a formal language, the Hebrew of the majority of biblical 
documents, is not the working language of the writers of the DSS.

The analogy when examined simply doesn't work.

>It is a fact that
>in many cultures the writing system is highly conservative, even to the 
>point of requiring literate people to essentially learn a second language 
>to write, especially in religious texts.  I'm not just thinking of the 
>nearly exclusive use of Latin in Italy well until the 14th cen., but the 
>use of wenyan in China until the baihua movement at the end of the Qing 
>dynasty, the use of Sanskrit in India, the dominance of classical 
>Arabic, etc.
>
>I suppose you're trying to establish that a presumption that a written 
>text is by default written in a language that is currently being spoken.

No. I would argue from the orthographical and phonological indications 
found in the scrolls themselves that we were dealing with a productive 
spoken language. There are numerous cases showing that the pronunciation of 
words is actively constructed in the writing, making sure, for example, 
that a waw or a yod was pronounced as consonants by the insertion of an 
alef. (And see my response to Rolf for a little more on the spoken nature 
of the DSS dialect.)


Ian

>As numerous, transcultural examples go, this presumption is a dicey 
>proposition.  I'm not expressing an opinion about your conclusions 
>with respect to the DSS, just that the methodology you seem to wish 
>to apply does not appear to obtain usable results for many texts 
>throughout the world.



---
You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: Peter_Kirk AT sil.org 
To unsubscribe, forward this message to 
$subst('Email.Unsub')
To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.