Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

On 9/20/05, Karl Randolph wrote:
> > You can't claim this is the issue until you've looked at the
> > evidence.
> 
> To use a term from the computer industry, GIGO.

The only thing that is "GO" is conclusions you make when 
you have evidence in front of you but refuse to examine at it.
Because the only thing that can go in, if it's not the
evidence going in, is the "GI".

> While I have not looked at the sheer amount of data, I
> have seen some of it. Unless more data differs in quality
> from that I have seen, mere quantity becomes tedious.
> What I have seen is not convincing, mainly because it
> does not control for time, rather it assumes "all along".

You don't know Aramaic, nor Ugaritic, and not Arabic.  I
am not sure how you can look at the data under those 
conditions if you can't properly read any data.

> > Right now, you refuse to look, no matter the
> > reason.  And really, it seems to me that the reason is that
> > you made an assumption regarding the roots of Hebrew
> > being unique, spent a lot of time constructing a dictionary,
> > and now do not want to review that initial assumption which
> > was never based on anything more than your personal
> > belief in it, without evidence, but which will effectively mean
> > the dictionary is erroneous in many places.  No wonder you
> > don't want to reconsider it or even devote time to reviewing
> > the evidence.
> >
> Rather, I have rejected your theory based on the data I
> have seen so far.

The only possible way to read "see" in the sentence above is that
you selectively choose what to see, and what not to see. 
Because I showed you data, and I didn't say "go read all the
3000 pages of the corpus of Ugaritic" or "go read the whole Torah
in Aramaic."  What I said is to read a relatively sizeable portion 
of that body of data, not a paragraph, nor something as long as the
Aramaic in the Bible which is still relatively short.  Something
a little longer, but not too much longer, if you're really strapped
for time.

> Secondly, I noticed words where one
> root derivative as determined by meaning and context will
> use a shin while another a sin. The example of the latter
> that comes immediately to my mind is "place" where the
> verb %YM to place is written with a sin, while $M that
> place, i.e. there is written with a shin. Even $M name
> could come from the same root as people place a person
> by his name when speaking. This is the type of data which
> is inconsistent with your theory, 

These are all guesses, and if you'd have known Biblical
Aramaic, you'd know that "there" is "tm" in Aramaic, not
"$m".  Consider the following cognates:

there - $m [BH], tm [BA], t_mny [Ug], thumma [Arb]
put/set - &ym [BH], &ym [BA], $ama [Arb]
name - $m [BH], $um [BA], ism [Arb], $m [Ug]

Hey, you picked the words, and I didn't invent these
languages so that they will work out exactly like that so
perfectly.  Exactly how did Aramaic influence (see the above) 
influence the pair of words $m [there] vs $m [name]?

> but consistent with a late
> bifurcation caused by corruption in the language caused
> by the fact that it was no longer spoken as a primary
> language, and that the pattern of corruption is similar to
> the pattern found in the corrupting, primary language
> spoken.

What you're suggested is that after Ugaritic was long buried
in the ground, Hebrew shifted the sound of exactly those 
words which were consistent with Ugaritic because of Aramaic
corruption.  This despite the fact that you can't tell Aramaic 
corruption from bona fide Hebrew, and that it is clear from
archaeological evidence that Hebrew continued to exist as
a living language long after the Babylonian exile.  How do you 
suggest the difference appeared in Aramaic?  Why did it 
happen only in words that match Ugaritic or Arabic but not 
other words?  How would you suggest the roots $kr - &kr
are etymologically matched?

> The few examples I have seen for the ayin/ghayin
> bifurcation I have found either inconclusive to unlikely.

To be fair, Dr. Steiner apparently refrains from conclusively
stating that (-g' difference existed, apparently because the
closest he can come to a minimal pair is g'almum (young
person) vs (aalamum (eternity).  The vowel difference between
a and aa and between 0 and a apparently prevents this from
being a perfect minimal pair.  He even suggests that perhaps
g' evolved from (, but he places it in the stage before Proto-
Semitic.  But the case is different for the other root letters.

> > > You mentioned similarities between Ugaritic and Arabic; seeing as
> > > both had northern Semitic origins, what's to prevent their
> > > similarities having a common source, one not shared by Biblical
> > > Hebrew, or even early Aramaic?
> >
> > Arabic is not Northern Semitic.
> 
> To quote the Wikipedia article you earlier referenced, "In the 6th
> and 5th centuries BC, north-Semitic tribes immigrated and
> founded a kingdom centered around Petra, in what is now
> Jordan. These people (now named Nabataeans from the name
> of one of the tribes, Naba?u), spoke probably a form of Arabic

Arabic isn't a form of North Semitic.  If you can't verify facts from the
wikipedia yourself, don't quote randomly from it.  Wikipedia is a handy
resource, but because it is not edited nor monitored by those with
expertise on the subject, you should verify everything you read there.

> The article clearly connects Arabic with northern
> Semitic peoples and language, do you disagree with it?

Yes, Arabic is not North Semitic.  "North Semitic people"
(whatever that means) can speak Arabic.  But that doesn't 
make the language North Semitic.

> >  Hebrew and Aramaic
> > are closer to Ugaritic and Phoenician than they are to
> > Arabic.
> 
> That can be explained by passage of time, nothing
> fancier.

This statement of yours can be explained by lack of knowledge
and acquaintance with the evidence, nothing more.

> > Do you want to now reclassify Arabic and
> > Ugaritic, two languages you haven't studied and
> > know little about as a separate branch independent of
> > Hebrew and Aramaic?
> 
> Unless you have clear data to the contrary, can you
> disprove it? 

You don't have any data.  Yes, Arabic is clearly, from data,
not North Semitic and further related from Ugaritic than 
Hebrew and Aramaic are related to Ugaritic.  Go learn 
Arabic, Ugaritic, and Aramaic before you suggest there is
no clear data for this position.

> So far the only arguments I have seen to
> disprove it is theory, not data. 

I gave you data.  You refused to read it because you don't
have time.  But you can spend hours writing this posts
which would be better spent learning Aramaic and Ugaritic.
That will benefit you not only in this discussion but it will
give you further insights into Bible study.  And you only
have to accept those insights that you feel comfortable 
with.

> I don't pretend to prove my theory, rather I claim that the 
> data are too fragmentary to say either way.

Seeing how you refuse to look at that data which does not
suit you, there is no wonder why you think the data is 
fragmentary.  But in any case, the above claim is false.

> > You can propose a lot of things.
> > The question is not what you propose when you are
> > oblivious to the evidence.  But what you propose when
> > you are fully aware of it.

Interesting that to this statement you have no response.

> > > You are making assumptions that I don't share.
> >
> > You're the one assuming that each root must be uniquely
> > represented graphically.
> 
> Excuse me, where did I make that claime?

Sorry, I meant the other way around.  Each unique set of
graphemes that make up a root uniquely represents one
root.  That is an assumption of yours.  I don't make that 
assumption.  I let the data decide.  You refuse to look at the
data.  In any case, in regard to this assumption, look at what
I posted regarding Haddyith(i's statue at Tell Fekheriye.

> > Note where it speaks of "Pre-Islamic Arabic Inscriptions."
> > "They mostly do not use dots."  The list that follows shows
> > that Arabic was written over several centuries in this way.  And
> > you don't know that Arabic wasn't widely written this way, just
> > on perishable materials.
> >
> But from the same article, we read that before the adding
> of dots to make more graphemes in Arabic, most official
> documents were written in Aramaic or other more widely
> written languages. It was only with the advent of the Quran
> that Arabic was widely written in official documents and
> that it had its full complement of graphemes.

How does any of that reflect on what I said above?

> > Serious detailed study of Hebrew does begin with the DSS,
> > and that does not mean that we should "shut the door on
> > the study of Biblical Hebrew."  But if you trust the scribes
> > to transmit the text, why don't you trust the readers to
> > transmit the vocalization?
> >
> There's a difference between writing and speaking.
> Writing is hard data, speaking is soft. The hard can be
> reproduced even when the soft is lost. In fact,
> archeologists regularly reproduce (in photographs and/or
> drawings at least) data for which the software (use of the
> object, interpretation of writing) has been lost.

The vocalization information in the MT is as hard data as the
consonants themselves.  If you trust the graphemes of 
consonants to represent phonemic ("speech") values properly, 
you should similarly trust the graphemes of vowels to
represent phonemic values properly.

> As for Hebrew pronunciations, the Masoretic dots are
> separated from the last native speaker of Biblical Hebrew
> by about a millennium. When there is such a gap, it is very
> unlikely that the pronunciation was preserved, especially
> when there are clear examples where the dots are wrong.

So are the Massoretic consonants.  If you want to go earlier
than the Massoretic consonants you must involve yourself
in the entire body of studies around the DSS, the Hexapla,
and early Hebrew inscriptions.  So long as you are unable to
fully compare the Massoretic Text to the results of such
study yourself, you're stuck with the Massoretic Text, for all 
that it contains.  

> > So long as you don't look at the evidence, you can't
> > suggest your theory is an alternative.  You know, I
> > always find that after looking at an analysis of the
> > evidence, I usually have to adjust my theory somehow.
> > It can be little, it can be a lot, but my theories always
> > become more robust as a result.  You've admitted there
> > is evidence but you don't have time to look at it.  You
> > can't just pretend it isn't there.
> >
> There are data, and there are theories. I don't dispute the
> data. What I dispute is the interpretation of the data, i.e.
> the theories. 

How can you dispute the interpretation of the data without
examining the data yourself?

> Your theory contradicts historically attested
> uses of alphabetic writing. 

No it does not.  And you have not shown any specific 
examples of such writing where it contradicts.  You have
suggested Greek but Greek worked in various respects
differently from Semitic writing anyway.

> It contradicts data from other sources. 

What other sources?

> What it explains can also be explained by other
> theories. 

Only when you are oblivious to the data.  This is what all
this boils down to.  I showed you various evidence and you
did not see it.  You refused.  Whatever the reason, you
refused.  You don't know Aramaic.  You don't know
Ugaritic.  You don't know Arabic.  And you think that while
oblivious to the qualities of these languages you can make
various theories.  Well, you can theorize all you want.  I
can theorize that the sky is green every Sunday in Finland
if I refuse to look at photos from Finland and visit Finland.  
Yes, I say, you have all these photos that you diligently took
every Sunday the past decade, but I don't have time to look
at them.  I looked at some photos that were shot by a very 
good man (but a very bad wizard) and I must say, that the 
evidence I have looked at thus far allows both interpretations.
Without evidence, you can propose any theory.  Not looking
at the evidence, nothing will stop you.  But from the moment
I gave you all the tools you need to start off, your refusal to
look at the evidence is just plain "GI" to use the term with
which you started this post.  From now on, everytime you
propose your theory I will be there to remind you that I gave
you all the tools you needed and you refused to look at the
evidence.  Ignorance is bliss, but don't go off making theories
out of ignorance.

Yitzhak Sapir