Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Initial "Beged Kefet" consonants always have a...

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
  • To: "Dr. Joel M. Hoffman" <joel AT exc.com>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Initial "Beged Kefet" consonants always have a...
  • Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 17:08:56 +0100

On 24/10/2005 16:35, Dr. Joel M. Hoffman wrote:

In case you think that this is something I have said, I have not. I have simply stated that as far as I can see LXX does not provide evidence

This list has a way of taking simple ideas and obfuscating them. Once
again:

1. There's no evidence that TH (Tiberian Hebrew) vowels, syllable
structure, or Beged Kefet rules reflect Hebrew from over 1,000
years prior.


Also, there is not evidence that they do not.

2. In particular, the LXX does not provide this evidence (because
there is no evidence).


LXX provides good evidence neither for nor against the hypothesis.

3. Linguists unanimously agree that languages change over time, so
the default assumption ought to be that late first millennium CE
Hebrew differed from late first millennium BCE Hebrew.


Agreed there were probably differences in some areas. However, there is no reason to suggest that these differences were anything like what you have suggested that they might be - although there is suggestive evidence for some vowel changes. In particular, there is no evidence and no particular reason to believe that the syllable structure changed, and also no evidence and no particular reason to believe that the Begadkefat rules changed.

...

This thread resurfaced when someone (I forget who) asked the question,
"doesn't the LXX show that TH matches Biblical Hebrew." I answered
"no."


Agreed, but it also does not show that TH does not match biblical Hebrew.

[Though (1-3) are almost universally accepted (certain religious
advocates being the exception), the implications are widely ignored.
We do everyone a disservice when, for example, we talk about Dagesh or
Segholates in Biblical Hebrew. Those are elements of TH, not Biblical
Hebrew.


These are elements of TH which may or may not also be applicable to biblical Hebrew. Although some things doubtless changed, the probability of any single feature changing in 1000 years is actually not very high. We have no evidence to tell us whether or not these particular features changed.


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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page