Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>]

----- Original Message -----
From: Polycarp66 AT aol.com

> In a message dated 1/14/2004 5:15:09 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
> kwrandolph AT email.com writes:
> 
> > 
> > Every time I studied a foreign language, I studied it with the goal of 
> > thinking in that language. I have the same goal while reading Tanakh in 
> > B-Hebrew.
> > 
> > For example, does the B-prefix mean “with”? I can’t think of one time 
> > except in the very narrow context where “with” is used as a sign of 
> > instrumentality. As a sign of instrumentality, “with” is occasionally the 
> > short, easy way 
> > to give an English translation than to give a more awkward but accurate 
> > meaning of the Hebrew: but here we are talking English style and not 
> > Hebrew 
> > meaning.
> > 
> ____
> 
> There are two points here which interest me.  I will mention one and deal 
> more with the other.  I can't imagine why anyone would ever attempt to 
> claim that 
> they "think" in an ancient language.  I think it patently false since there 
> is really no way to carry on a meaningful conversation in the language.  
> Modern 
> Hebrew isn't Biblical Hebrew.

But I do think in Biblical Hebrew.

No, it is not modern Hebrew. I don’t understand modern Hebrew. As a cognate 
language to Biblical Hebrew, I recognize many lexemes, but the grammar and 
many uses of lexemes don’t make sense. It’s a foreign language.

Biblical Hebrew, on the other hand, I can read without translating. Often, 
when thinking about concepts I read in Tanakh, the thoughts come to my mind 
in Hebrew, sometimes only a phrase, sometimes two or three sentences at a 
time. It is not carrying on a conversation, it is not even fluent, but it is 
thoughts coming to my mind in Hebrew without translating from another 
language. If that isn’t “thinking in Hebrew” what is it?

> In regard to lexicography the current trend seems to be toward a fuller 
> explication of the word than is evidenced by the use of a gloss.  Certainly 
> BDB is 
> a "translator's dictionary", why shouldn't it be?

If all one wants to do is to make translations, then a translator’s 
dictionary is what one wants. If one wants to get a feel for Biblical Hebrew, 
a translator’s dictionary can actually be a hindrance. It is better to get a 
dictionary that gives the closest equivelant in English, or a short sentence 
but not a dissertation, then do what your following paragraph recommends.

> In getting a feel for the 
> language (probably what is meant by the phrase "think in the language") 
> large 
> quantities of text must be consumed.  It is only thus that one can come to 
> an 
> appreaciation of the differences in nuance presented by the use of the same 
> words by different authors in different contexts.  The rule of truly 
> learning a 
> language is "Read, READ, then READ SOME MORE."
> 
> gfsomsel
> 
As for the B-prefix, there are three meanings that I know of:

in, with a broad meaning, including in, among, into
as a sign of instrumentality, “by means of” (even in many places where one 
does not so use English, e.g. Deuteronomy 21:14 where silver is used as the 
instrument by which the sale is made)
grammatical use, such as XPC (maybe some other verbs as well) has its object 
designated by a B-prefix.

(Even this meaning in this posting is a lot longer than I normally would look 
for)

Karl W. Randolph.
-- 
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm