Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Fw: Aramaic to them?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>
  • To: "Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Fw: Aramaic to them?
  • Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 16:59:57 -0500

Peter:

English has a history that makes it difficult
to compare with other languages: already the
English as used by Chaucer was a pidgin
language, a combination of French and Old
English. As I understand the process, pidgin
languages always involve simplification. And
now modern English is becoming the pidgin for
the world, combined with the fact that the
government schools, particularly here in the
U.S.A. are doing a terrible job of teaching
English, with the result of a tremendous
pressure to simplify the language further.

It is the loss of the WAYYIQTOL form that is a
large part of the reason I think that Hebrew
was no longer spoken as a native language
within a few generations after the Galut
Babel. The perfect could easily shift to being
a past tense, the imperfect to a future tense,
the participle to present tense: these were
concepts that were common to most languages
and I suspect even Aramaic of that time, but
the WAYYIQTOL form referred to a functionality
that was unique to Hebrew, hence would it not
be the form the most difficult to master for
those who are not used to it, therefore the
first to be dropped in a fossil use of the
language? That’s what I expect.

Latin had an advantage in that most of where
it continued to be used as a fossil language
was in areas where daughter languages were
spoken—daughter languages which maintained the
functionality present in Latin. Therefore
those who learned to speak Latin did not have
to learn new concepts when learning the
grammatical forms. Even so, Latin did change
in recognizable ways over the centuries.

Peter, I’m not philosophically opposed to the
idea that there was a Hebrew speaking
community in Judea and/or Samaria two
millennia ago, in fact, philosophically, I’d
prefer to believe that such a community
existed, it is just that I don’t see
convincing evidence for such a community. In
this discussion I’m just playing the part of
the devil’s advocate.

Karl W. Randolph.

----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>

> On 07/03/2004 21:18, Karl Randolph wrote:
>
> >... And that the verbal forms gradually shifted away from the
> >Biblical forms to parallel the usages in the writers' mother tongues is
> >again indicative that Hebrew was a
> >language used well only by an elite, and even they were not always very
> >well versed in the language.
> >
> >
> >
> Trevor has answered the first part of this well. As for this second
> part, the verb forms in dead languages e.g. Latin are usually slavishly
> copied from those of the classical form, and not shifted (at least in
> form, maybe in function) to those of the writers' mother tongues. Your
> suggestion that the writers were not well versed in the language is an
> interesting one, although unlikely given the devotion of the scribes to
> the Hebrew scriptures and the extent to which these scriptures were
> copied. But if this idea is undermined by the fact that the verb form
> most thoroughly lost in Mishnaic Hebrew and I think in QH was the one
> which is most common and therefore most likely to be mastered first in
> BH, that is the WAYYIQTOL form.
>
>
> --
> Peter Kirk
> peter AT qaya.org (personal)
> peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
> http://www.qaya.org/
>

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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page