Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Paul Zellmer" <zellmer AT digitelone.com>]

Ian wrote:

> Beside the physical presence of perhaps 20% Aramaic in the texts from
> Qumran, I see no indication of any bilingualism whatsoever. I could
imagine
> that a speaker of Hebrew could read Aramaic just as I can struggle
through
> French material because I know Italian (and going to Spain I could
speak to
> Spaniards in Italian and be understood, though I couldn't understand
spoken
> Spanish). But for bilingualism, I know of no traces in any of the
texts to
> indicate it. Are there in fact any bilingual texts from the period?

Since you are basing your impression in part on your own modern-day
experience, and then combining that with an argument of silence, perhaps
you are looking at the wrong part of your experience.   Rather than
taking comparisons with two languages in which you claim not to be
proficient, perhaps you would have done better to use your writings in
English and Italian.  While I have not seen any of your Italian
writings, I can definitely state that your English writings reflect no
traces of bilingualism with any other languages.  Yet I have no doubt
when you claim to be proficient in Italian, because nothing precludes
that.

What I have generally observed is that people who are truly bilingual
tend to stay in one language or another during a conversation or
discourse.  I think of a recent case where I asked a friend to interpret
for me in a business dealing with a person from the Ilocano language of
the Philippines.  The friend got so much into his Ilocano mode that he
forgot to switch back to Ibanag (our common language) in his explanation
to me.  Yet Ibanag is his first language, and the language that is
spoken in his house and normal business dealings.

If someone is truly multilingual, not just conversant in many languages,
you should probably *not* expect to see cross-over and borrowings.

Just my thoughts,

Paul
----
On July 14:
  1789  Bastille Day-French Revolution begins with the fall of Bastille
  1865  1st ascent of Matterhorn
  1911  46" of rain begins to fall in Baguio, Philippines

Paul and Dee Zellmer, Jimmy Guingab, Geoffrey Beltran
Ibanag Translation Project
Cabagan, Isabela, Rep. of Philippines

zellmer AT digitelone.com

----- Original Message -----
From: Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>
To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 1999 3:26 AM
Subject: Re: Josephus & 1Esdras


> >"There are several possibilities that could give rise to t - sibilant
> >variant forms (in Greek transliterations or otherwise), the most
> >obvious being the Proto-Semitic interdentals (non-sibilant coronal
> >fricatives) which merged with sibilants in Canaanite, and ultimately
> >with stops in Aramaic."
>
> (The trajectory does seem coherent.)
>
> >"Coronal" is a vague cover term for dental, alveolar, etc.
> >"Interdental" is the term which means "th"-type sounds.
>
> Ta.
>
> >I would be surprised if there was a significant number of Jews who
had
> >Hebrew as a native language, and who were not also bilingual and
> >natively fluent in Aramaic.
>
> And I would be surprised if there were. I have no doubt that both
> languages, plus Greek, were in use at the time of Josephus, but I've
seen
> little evidence of bilingualism, though there must have been some for
trade
> to have existed, but that need only have been some sort of pidgin.
>
> Beside the physical presence of perhaps 20% Aramaic in the texts from
> Qumran, I see no indication of any bilingualism whatsoever. I could
imagine
> that a speaker of Hebrew could read Aramaic just as I can struggle
through
> French material because I know Italian (and going to Spain I could
speak to
> Spaniards in Italian and be understood, though I couldn't understand
spoken
> Spanish). But for bilingualism, I know of no traces in any of the
texts to
> indicate it. Are there in fact any bilingual texts from the period?
>
> We know that DSS Hebrew was a spoken language as shown by the care in
> orthographic representations of sounds of words. It is also shown by
the
> fact that although the language had had a large influx from Aramaic it
> still produced texts, ie new texts were being produced in an Aramaic
> influenced Hebrew which was at its base not Biblical Hebrew, but
another
> form. Orthography and phonology indicates that this Hebrew was spoken
and
> the existence of a literature in a heavily Aramaic-influenced Hebrew
shows
> that it was productive.
>
> A number of contracts from Murabba'at were in Hebrew, though it would
be
> strange that such documents of everyday importance would be written in
a
> language of little use. If Aramaic were, by then, the language of the
> Hebrews, why write civil documents in Hebrew? Murabba'at suggests the
> status quo, ie all the languages were productive.
>
> I am surprised that you could posit that most "a significant number of
> Jews" could have "Hebrew as a native language," and also be "bilingual
and
> natively fluent in Aramaic". With no bilingual texts to support such
claims
> (well, Hasmonean coins were usually inscribed with both Hebrew and
Greek)
> yet good evidence for productivity in all the languages, I can't see
why
> you think as you do, though I know that Aramaic ascendancy has been
assumed
> for centuries. The DSS have undermined that assumption.
>
> >Josephus could have been perfectly
> >consistent (according to his own lights) in using the terms "Hebrew"
> >or "the Jewish language" for the language employed by the majority of
> >Jews, which would have been what we call Hebrew in ca. 700 B.C., but
> >Aramaic (or Jewish dialects of Aramaic) in Josephus' own time.
> >(Josephus' knowledge of Hebrew is not relevant to whether Hebrew was
> >his native language, and anyway "shabbat" or "shambat" was also an
> >Aramaic word.)
>
> I have already mentioned on this list that Josephus's form of Sabbath
is
> that normally found in the LXX and therefore can in no way reflect on
his
> native language.
>
> Why should Josephus, using the term "Syrian tongue" to describe
Aramaic (in
> the Rabshekeh example), then refer to his own language as Hebrew? Why
does
> he use the Aristeas material (AJ 12,2,1) -- saying that the religious
texts
> were not in Syrian but in a language peculiar to the Jews -- without
> clarifying the situation in his own day?
>
> I see no reason to believe that he was not a speaker of Hebrew. In
fact,
> given the statements I've mentioned from his works, I think the onus
is on
> anyone who believes the contrary to provide some evidence.
>
> (Whatever the case, it seems to me that Josephus probably used the
Greek 1
> Esdras as his source in AJ for his Ezra story, which in itself needs
> explanation -- not that one is forthcoming.)
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Ian
>
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: zellmer AT digitelone.com
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to
$subst('Email.Unsub')
> To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.
>