Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>]

On 29/01/2004 03:52, Trevor Peterson wrote:

> > ===== Original Message From Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org> =====
> >    
> >
> > > You can also check HALOT.
> > >
> > >
> > >      
> > I did. Trevor rejected the evidence as probably derivative from Hebrew.
> >    
>
> That's overstating what I did. I simply pointed out that saying "Arabic" and 
> "Aramaic" attest a particular form doesn't provide any real evidence apart 
> from Hebrew. HALOT does not specify where in Aramaic the form appears. If it 
> appears only in BA or any later form of Jewish Aramaic or Syriac, there is no 
> good reason to think that it is not derived from Hebrew. The same can be said 
> for the Arabic of the Qur'an and beyond. If all we had to go on was what HALOT 
> said, we could go no further. I've already pointed out in a follow-up message 
> that the form is widely attested in Aramaic where Hebrew influence is 
> unlikely.
>
> Trevor Peterson
> CUA/Semitics
>
>
>  
Thanks for the clarification. The HALOT editors were of course limited 
by space, and so were unable to give fully dated citations to prove that 
the Aramaic form they give predates likely Hebrew evidence. But that 
seems to be well known to Aramaic scholars, at least to Trevor and to 
Jonathan. So what are we arguing about? The adequacy of HALOT?

--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/