Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] A Jewish perspective on reading biblical hebrew

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Uri Hurwitz <uhurwitz AT yahoo.com>
  • To: Dave Washburn <dwashbur AT nyx.net>, b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Cc:
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] A Jewish perspective on reading biblical hebrew
  • Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 18:15:31 -0800 (PST)



Dave Washburn <dwashbur AT nyx.net> wrote:
"..... But as you may have gathered from this
board, the perfect/imperfect thing doesn't exactly work, either. We're
fairly sure that BH isn't tensed, but it doesn't really seem to be aspectual,
either. That's why many of us are engaged in ongoing research, trying to
figure out exactly what it is (at the moment, we can only tell you what it
isn't). "

-- Now the mystery really deepens: if the above is correct, how could this
language have been in use for thousands of years, been translated to
practically every written language; how could commentators delude themselves
they understaood it -- since the the days of the Dead Sea Scrolls at least,
if its very basic verbal system defies comprehension?

Perhaps it is simply the difference between the use of a language on the
one hand, and the grammatical tools that are employed to analyze it, tools
that by their nature are constructs and abstractions?

Uri




---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! – What will yours do?
>From dwashbur AT nyx.net Fri Nov 26 00:37:21 2004
Return-Path: <dwashbur AT nyx.net>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from S3.cableone.net (smtp3.cableone.net [24.116.0.229])
by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D47B74C005
for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 00:37:20 -0500
(EST)
Received: from [192.168.0.103] (unverified [69.92.35.57])
by S3.cableone.net (CableOne SMTP Service S3) with ESMTP id 2372046
for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 22:44:21 -0700
From: Dave Washburn <dwashbur AT nyx.net>
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] A Jewish perspective on reading biblical hebrew
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 22:37:15 -0700
User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2
References: <20041126021531.55902.qmail AT web51610.mail.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <20041126021531.55902.qmail AT web51610.mail.yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <200411252237.15390.dwashbur AT nyx.net>
X-Abuse-Info: Send abuse complaints to abuse AT cableone.net
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Hebrew Bible List <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
<mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
<mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 05:37:21 -0000

On Thursday 25 November 2004 19:15, Uri Hurwitz wrote:
> Dave Washburn <dwashbur AT nyx.net> wrote:
> "..... But as you may have gathered from this
> board, the perfect/imperfect thing doesn't exactly work, either. We're
> fairly sure that BH isn't tensed, but it doesn't really seem to be
> aspectual, either. That's why many of us are engaged in ongoing research,
> trying to figure out exactly what it is (at the moment, we can only tell
> you what it isn't). "
>
> -- Now the mystery really deepens: if the above is correct, how could this
> language have been in use for thousands of years, been translated to
> practically every written language; how could commentators delude
> themselves they understaood it -- since the the days of the Dead Sea
> Scrolls at least, if its very basic verbal system defies comprehension?

Sarcasm doesn't get us anywhere. If you have it all figured out, let's hear
it. We know what doesn't work. Feel free to show us what does work - for
every instance, not just a pet few that seem to support a pet theory.

And of course, our problem here in the 21st century is that the language in
its Tanak form died out nearly 2,000 years ago.

As for translations, they are approximate and frequently don't agree with
each
other for those very reasons.

Oh yes, and the amazing diversity of opinions in the commentaries hardly
supports the idea that anybody really understands it completely. So thanks
for making my point.

[snip]

--
Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
"No good. Hit on head." -Gronk




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page