Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Yitzhak:

This is the last time I plan to respond to this thread. Unless 
you can come up with new data that backs up your theory, 
you have nothing but theory. I asked for Aramaic 
documents from about 1800 BC, the best you could do is 
a statue from a thousand years later, and even that one I 
see as providing more support to how I think the Hebrew 
language developed than your theory. You have à priori 
ruled out the Hebrew data as being valid, and I based on 
working with modern cognate languages discount your 
cognate language data as being valid. It doesn't matter if 
I study Ugaritic, Aramaic and Arabic until I'm blue in the 
face, if I think your reliance on cognate languages is 
wrong, no amount of cognate language data is going to 
convince me.

Evidence from the history of European languages where 
we have documented records, does not support your 
model.

If you had come to me 20 years ago I would have believed 
you. In fact, I did believe it then. That was back when I still 
depended on the Masoretic points to read Tanakh. Since 
then I have read Tanakh using unpointed Hebrew several 
times, and it is the use of the unpointed text that led me to 
question even BGD KPT, let alone your theory of merged 
phonemes. What I need from you, knowing full well that 
you cannot provide it, is a series of documents written in 
Aramaic and Hebrew, dating from 2,000 BC or older to 
about 800 BC, showing how the languages developed 
and how the phonemes merged over that period of time. 
Without in language data to back up your theory, your 
theory is no more than speculation.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>
> 
> On 9/22/05, Karl Randolph wrote:
> >
> > While there is evidence (with which not everyone agrees)
> > that Hebrew ceased to be a natively spoken language
> > during the Babylonian Captivity or at the latest a
> > generation of two thereafter, there is no question that
> > Daniel, writing during the Captivity or very shortly
> > thereafter, and later Ezra, expected Jews to know and
> > understand Aramaic. Right there there is a pattern
> > (Aramaic influence) on a non-natively spoken language
> > (or one where native speakers formed a minority among
> > the total population), a situation ripe for a pronunciation
> > change that mimics base pair changes without the base
> > pairs being present in the originating language.
> 
> Daniel is not evidence as you require various assumptions in
> order to date it that early.

And you require various competing assumptions to date it 
late

>  And those are assumptions are not
> necessary because there is sufficient evidence for Aramaic
> prior to Daniel and as little as it is, it is at least comparable
> to Biblical Aramaic.  But while you can point to "confitions"
> that would be "ripe" for your change, you haven't demonstrated
> it.  You are assuming it.  Stop assuming and see what the
> evidence proves instead.
> 
In the absence of historical data, what do you have 
besides your assumptions? And seeing as your 
assumptions are ideologically biased (no less biased 
than mine), why should I accept your assumptions?

> > > What does it matter what you have seen when you choose
> > > to selectively look at the evidence?
> > >
> > For years I have been interested in what are the earliest
> > examples of alphabetic writing that can be connected to
> > recognizably Hebrew writing. The oldest, and then only a
> > possible hit, was from a news article a few months back. I
> > don't consider that being selective. Rather I look at it as
> > being the opposite, not enough data. Data from centuries,
> > even millennia later, I view as inconclusive. Possibly
> > misleading.
> 
> That is being selective because you are not looking at the full
> body of data that was published.  A news article is not
> publishing data but an excerpt from the publication.  But I was
> referring to your not agreeing to learn Ugaritic and Aramaic by
> yourself.
> 
Again I appeal back to available time. I have already 
spent too much on this exchange which has led nowhere, 
If I had all the time in the world, I would gladly study both 
languages, but seeing as I have only limited time, and 
furthermore I expect only very limited benefit for the 
understanding of Biblical Hebrew from such a study, at 
this point in my life I cannot spare the time to do a proper 
study of that material. (I did read five chapters in Exodus 
before making breakfast for my sons this morning, which 
I consider time well spent in the study of Hebrew.)

> > > > Alphabetic use could have been in existence for
> > > > centuries, or was new. Do we have indications from that
> > > > period as to how many letters it had at that time?
> > >
> > > Epigraphic South Arabic uses 29 letters that are an
> > > independent and earlier divergence from Proto-Canaanite
> > > than the Hebrew/Phoenician/Aramaic one.  Some of the
> > > additional Proto-Canaanite alphabet letters can be clearly
> > > related to the ones in ESA.   So yes.
> > >
> > Doesn't answer my question for Hebrew.
> 
> You said "alphabetic use."  Alphabets were in use for centuries
> prior to its use to write Hebrew.  By the way, what do you mean
> by alphabet?  Does your definition include Ugaritic?  (Why or why
> not?)
> 
There were many alphabets used by many languages, 
including Ugaritic, but what I demand to see is examples 
of alphabetic use in Aramaic and Hebrew from 2,000 BC 
to about 800 BC, and that in extensive documents, not 
just graffiti. Well?

> > > > How many extensive writings from that period remain that
> > > > are recognizably Aramaic or Hebrew?
> > >
> > > If you could prove to me that the Torah is written in Hebrew,
> > > and not in Aramaic or Phoenician, then we can discuss this.
> > >
> > In other words, none.
> 
> I want to be sure you won't suggest that a text I bring up is not
> Hebrew.  So to make sure you don't, I want you to define what you
> mean by Hebrew.  How do you know that the entire Torah and Bible
> is not written in a dialect of Aramaic?  How do you know that two
> texts are written in Aramaic and not in two different Aramaic-like
> dialects, but different languages.  For example, Daniel's Aramaic
> sections and Ezra's.  How do you know that two separate texts
> are written in Hebrew and not closely related but different
> Hebrew dialects.  For example, Samuel and Leviticus?
> 
How do you know that Shakespeare and my computer 
manuel were not written in two closely related, cognate 
languages? Or that the KJV was composed in a closely 
related dialect of Shakespearean? C'mon! Don't be 
ridiculous!

> > > > Can we build a time
> > > > line from that period to the Biblical usage from that era?
> > >
> > > Generally, yes.  It really depends on what you mean by time
> > > line and what you mean by Biblical usage.
> > >
> > In other words, no.
> 
> Please don't reinterpret what I say.  If you define the above, I
> can properly answer you.
> 
OK, show me, from extended documents in Aramaic and 
Hebrew dating from about 2,000 BC or older to about 800 
BC. showing that the phonemes merged, and the timeline 
of their mergers. Can you document that timeline?

> > > Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with evidence before
> > > firing questions at random.  Various evidence at different
> > > times generally allows us to place in relative context when
> > > various phonemes merged.
> > >
> > How about phonemes diverging or being introduced? By
> > considering only merged is rather selective.
> 
> I consider also divergences.  The evidence shows that phonemes
> merged.
> 
> Since this discussion is centering on evidence, I'll concentrate
> on these issues.
> 
OK, where's the valid evidence. Cognate languages don't 
count.

> > You have yet to show any evidence other than that based
> > on theory.
> 
> I showed you Ugaritic and Aramaic.  Again, a lesson in Ugaritic:
> 
> http://www.theology.edu/onlinecourses.html#Ugaritic%20Grammar
> 
> Texts in Ugaritic:
> 
> http://www.labherm.filol.csic.es/sapanu2003/UDBTEXTS.pdf
> 
> A concordance of Ugaritic:
> 
> http://www.labherm.filol.csic.es/sapanu2003/CUW.zip
> 
> And a literal Aramaic translation of the Torah that makes it
> easy to learn Aramaic:
> 
> http://mechon-mamre.org/i/t/u/u0.htm
> 
> Basically, I ask you to read a reasonable sized section to the
> point you can pick up words you didn't know previously without a
> dictionary.
> 
> > > Also, Are you calling the inscription from Tell Fekherye a
> > > "grafitti"? It is both a legal and religious document.
> > >
> > I could give a long answer, but it ain't worth it.
> 
> Why not?  You are consistently ignoring the specific examples
> I put forward.  Tell Fekherye, $kl/&kl, Execration Texts.  Not to
> mention the whole corpus of Ugaritic and Onkelos.
> 
You need to prove your model, before your 
"evidence" counts.

> > > Don't the above examples regarding place names in the
> > > Execration Texts prove this?  Would place names in
> > > Thutmose III's list be sufficient? He's usually dated to the
> > > early 15th century.  What would prove it to you?
> > >
> > Nope. Translation from another though cognate language
> > into a third, unrelated language, does not tell how Hebrew
> > pronounced these names.
> 
> If I write a foreign place name that has the consonant ch (tsh),
> I use a "c'" to transliterate it, rather thana "c", by convention.  I
> recognize the additional phoneme even though it is not part of
> the Hebrew array of phonemes.  By your logic, the Hebrews,
> coming to Canaan, would have encountered the cognate
> language place names Athterot, Bet-Shemesh, etc, but used
> an inadequate alphabet to represent them, without inventing new
> phonemes to represent the place names.

Modern languages usually mangle foreign words and place 
names to make them fit within their phonetic structure, 
there is no reason that Biblical Hebrew did not do the 
same. Sometimes exposure to foreign phonemes leads to 
new phonemes in a language, usually not.

>  Thus, the alphabet
> used in the time of Joshua and Moses was inadequate to
> represent the body of words they were writing even though
> they were already writing large bodies of legal and religious
> texts.

Documentation?

>  By your logic, they should have added graphemes at this
> point.  They did not.  Besides, how do you know that it is a
> cognate language?  Or are you assuming again?
> 
All I see from you is assumption upon assumption.

> > > The reason that Arabic today is not North Semitic is because
> > > Arabic is classified as South Semitic.  That classification is
> > > not a result of migration of people.  It's a result of the relations
> > > between the languages.  Migration of people is a suggestion
> > > that comes after the classification is made and which may be
> > > independently supported.
> > >
> > So classification alone is sufficient reason to ignore
> > history?
> 
> What history is being ignored.  Arabic does not become "North
> Semitic" just because it is spoken by "North Semitic" people.
> And don't trust the Wikipedia on that, anyway.
> 
I just had to pull your chain, for linking to an article 
that you now diss.

> > To me that sounds like saying that English is an American
> > language as the United States is the largest English
> > speaking country in the world and most influential today in
> > spreading English usage in the rest of the world; ignoring
> > history that shows that a small island off Europe deserves
> > the blame instead.
> 
> It sounds like that to you because you don't know what you're
> talking about.  You can't classify a language without studying
> the language and the languages of related classifications in
> depth.  And you only studied Hebrew, and far from in depth.
> 
?? ... ??!

> > I almost hate to say this, but a "lexeme", as defined by the
> > Oxford American Dictionary included with Mac OS X 10.4
> > has the same definition as was given in the linguistics
> > classes I studied in college, as a lexical unit of a
> > language, consisting of one word or several words,
> > considered as an abstract unit. There is nothing in that
> > definition about graphemes, nor in my use of the term.
> >
> > There is nothing in that definition that claims that the
> > vocalization of "too" in English is anything other than three
> > different lexemes, which, if English were written
> > phonetically, would have the same grapheme. As it is, that
> > vocalization has three graphemes to indicate the at least
> > three lexemes that it represents.
> 
> According to your own definition above, a lexeme is at least
> a "word."  What three words or phrases (lexemes) do the three
> graphemes of "too" represent, and why does the presence of
> three graphemes indicate at least three words or phrases?
> 
What are you talking about?

> > > Again, so long as you refuse to look at vocalization evidence which
> > > native speakers did provide, you are in no place to look at non-
> > > vocalization information that native speakers provided as well.
> > >
> > There is no vocalization evidence from native speakers in
> > the Masoretic text.
> 
> There is no consonantal evidence from native speakers in the MT,
> either.
> 
Agreed, just phonemic indicators traditionally classified as 
consonants.

> > > > > 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.
> > > > >
> > > > Wrong.
> > >
> > > Which part is wrong?
> > >
> > That I need to go to all the DSS.
> >
> > For one, much in the DSS are irrelevant to a study of
> > Biblical Hebrew, as they are dealing with contemporary and
> > other topics not directly related to Biblical Hebrew.
> >
> > Secondly, others have already done the work, why
> > reinvent the wheel when I can stand on the shoulders of
> > those who have gone before?
> 
> Because you're doubting and negating the assumptions of those
> who have gone before you.  You can't rely on conclusions that
> are based on premises you don't accept.  If you want to rely on
> the conclusions and deny the premises, you must reconstruct
> the conclusions from your own premises.  You must reinvent the
> wheel, if you are persistent in reinventing it for your basic
> premises.
> 
This is nonsense. Just because I disagree with your 
strange theory does not mean that I disagree with textual 
criticism of Biblical texts using the DSS Bible copies. 
Those are two completely different fields.

> The DSS contain the earliest extant Biblical manuscripts.  How
> could that be irrelevant for the study of Biblical Hebrew?
> 
Who said DSS Biblical texts were irrelevant? Not I.

> > But I would love to see more of early Hebrew inscriptions
> > and ostraca, and this is one area where my isolation
> > really frustrates me, where I can often access only a
> > scholar's interpretation with, if I am lucky, a low resolution
> > image that cannot be used for independent analysis. I
> > have seen very few high resolution images, and one was
> > of a forgery.
> 
> How do you know Ugaritic was not Hebrew?  Are you
> defining Hebrew to be a language that does not contain
> extra phonemes, by assumption alone?
> 
> > Finally, I am not "stuck with the Massoretic Text, for all that
> > it contains.", for I am not constrained to accepting the
> > Masoretic points. I can ignore them as new invention.
> 
> How do you know they weren't copied down from earlier and
> the evidence simply didn't survive?  You believe in Mosaic
> authorship of the Torah, after all.
> 
You assume they did change. All I ask for is 
documentation.

None of the DSS had the points, there isn't even a place 
to put the points in pre-Exilic Hebrew writing, ergo the 
documentation for pre-existing points does not exist.

> > What I am looking for is recognizable and extensive
> > documentary evidence from the second millennium BC in
> > both Aramaic and Hebrew. Obviously you have nothing
> > on the Aramaic side.
> 
> If you can tell me how to tell apart Aramaic from other
> Semitic languages, I can help you there.
> 
> > You selectively rule out extant
> > Hebrew documents as copies of relevant Hebrew
> > examples, and for no historical reasons.
> 
> What do you mean by the above?  What do I rule out as
> evidence?
> 
Do you not rule out that Moses in the 15th century BC 
wrote Torah in basically the consonantal text form we 
have today apart from relatively few copiest errors? If 
so, you selectively rule out evidence I think is important.

> > While I admit that your theory could be right, the lack of
> > evidence on your part as to why I should accept your
> > model in the first place, contradicted by other evidence,
> > leads me to put it in the doubtful file.
> 
> You don't have contradictory evidence.  You can't.  You
> don't know Ugaritic, Aramaic, Arabic, or Akkadian, the
> major known Semitic languages besides Hebrew.

This is where I disagree with your model.

>  If you
> knew them you might have been able to support yourself
> with contradictory evidence, assuming such evidence
> exists.  Right now all you have are assumptions of
> "what if" that you could answer if you just learned some
> of those languages.
> 
And you are assuming "what if?" as a basis of your model.

> > It is not that I refuse to
> > look at the data, as others previously in different contexts
> > explained it to me in greater detail than you did in this
> > exchange,
> 
> Others have provided you before with the corpus of Ugaritic?
> Have you examined Ugaritic before?
> 
> > rather I need to see a good reason to accept
> > your model as to why I should accept your statistical
> > analysis in the first place, backed up by historical data
> > which you, by your own admission, do not have.
> 
> How about you provide me one specific way of the change in
> the various phonemes appearing in those languages, backed
> up by specific evidence from those languages?  (Evidently,
> you first need to learn the languages)
> 
This is funny. First you don't provide the documentary 
evidence I demand, but now you demand documentary 
evidence no one has. For example, all the histories I read 
concerning Ugaritic, assuming Kitchen's dates, say that it 
appeared suddenly without historical antecedent about 
1400 BC with most documents postulated to come from 
about 1200 BC after which it ceased to be written, and 
now you want me to give you a documented history of 
how the language developed before and afterwards?

Where is your documented evidence for Aramaic from 
before Tell Fekherye? You need that documented 
evidence to show your point. How do we know that the 
execration text names are not mangled in Egyptian, or 
even worse, our understanding is not mangle upon 
mangle? You assume too much.

> Yitzhak Sapir

In closing, the only evidence concerning the structure and 
vocabulary of Biblical Hebrew that we have is the text 
itself. From the DSS and prior documents, the evidence is 
that the original text did not include the Masoretic points. It 
includes only 22 recognized phonemes which have been 
connected to 22 consonants. Now you are trying to tell 
me, based on some theory with no documented evidence 
to back it up from within Biblical Hebrew and contrary to 
how both ancient and more modern languages treat 
phonetically spelled alphabets, that this alphabet was a 
defective fit for Biblical Hebrew and that the spoken 
language contained more phonemes. Intellectual 
rigorousness compels me, at the very least, to question 
your theory.

While I assume that Moses wrote Torah (don't quibble 
about the last chapter of Deuteronomy) by about 1400 BC, 
and that the consonantal text. apart from some copiest 
errors, basically reflects the text as he originally wrote it, 
the assumption that he didn't doesn't even have the fig 
leaf of historical consistency.

This discussion is going nowhere, and should stop.

Karl W. Randolph.



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