Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

Dear Karl,

> > > Really, you shouldn't show off your ignorance like
> > > that. This answer feels like second semester first
> > > year Biblical Hebrew, not a discussion among
> > > scholars.
> >
> > Karl, please stop with the personal attacks.  They
> > don't get you any closer to convincing anybody.
> >
> Oh, so you can dish out personal attacks, in the
> form of snide remarks and straw man arguments, but
> when I take you to task personally for your evident
> lack of knowledge of Hebrew, you complain. When I
> was young, we had a special scorn for those who
> would dish it out, but couldn't take it.

Karl, the "snide remarks" as you call them are facts.
When I say that only you recognize this inscription
or the words you produce as Proto-Sinaitic or as
"easily recognizable Biblical Hebrew", respectively,
it's true!  When I say that the Mesad Hashavyahu
ostracon, which you claimed cannot be read without
Naveh's interpretation, is used in the Hebrew
University website as an exercise for college students
to read it without Naveh's interpretation in front of them,
that's also true.  When you claim that I have an
"evident lack of knowledge of Hebrew" that's your
subjective opinion based on your own interpretation of
a particular artifact and of a particular text that no
one else thinks is Biblical Hebrew.

> > And this isn't a discussion among scholars.  I'm
> > not a scholar.  You're not a scholar.  A scholar
> > carries with it the meaning of having attended
> > school or being guided by a teacher.

> You have a predecessor in the form of Humpty Dumpty
> in "Alice through the Looking Glass" who defined
> words just the way he wanted to. If that's the way
> you want to define "scholar", it's not worth
> arguing over.

It's not how "I want to define" 'scholar'.  Look it up:
  http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=scholar
And the relationship between 'scholar' and 'school'
is undeniable.  Look at the etymology in the above.
I realize etymologies can be misleading, but this is
not so much the case here.

> ZH following a noun does not modify the noun,
> except when both have a definite article. ZH often
> stands alone to refer to "this thing", "this
> action" or other similar use.

No, I think in Biblical Hebrew Z)T usually takes this
role.  See for example: Isaiah 9:11.  Perhaps there
are rare instances of ZH for this meaning.  In
Modern Hebrew, ZH has replaced Z)T for this
particular usage.  I accept your rare instances of
W possessive on words prefixed by the definite
article.  But it is also clear that this is rare and
that they usually drop in BH.  You've taken an
irrelevant inscription, read its script using all kinds of
variant scripts (Proto-Sinaitic, South Arabian,
Phoenician, I'm not sure what else), making
identification mostly of lines and circles.  Then you
interpreted what you read using odd, unexpected,
or rare Hebrew words -- L(, H(DW, LHSR, ZH --
which, while not unexpected perhaps in pre-exilic
Hebrew, are definitely rare in Biblical Hebrew.  There
are so many variables here, that you may have used
this to mean almost anything you want.

> > > That you couldn't recognize something as simple as
> > > this inscription calls into question all your other
> > > claims. To me it looks as if you need to go back to
> > > school and take first year Biblical Hebrew. Then
> > > you need to read Tanakh cover to cover, at least
> > > two or three times. Then, maybe then, you'll be
> > > ready to discuss intelligently on this list.
> >
> > Well, you are the only one who "recognizes" this
> > inscription, anyway.
> >
> What sort of snide remark is this?

A fact.  You haven't shown anyone else recognizes this
inscription as "easily recognizable Biblical Hebrew" or
as Proto-Semitic script.  No one else on this list has
suggested that this is the case or concurred with you
and some have suggested you are wrong.

> > > Your argument seems to be that because you have
> > > studied Ugaritic, that qualifies you as a Hebrew
> > > scholar. That you could not understand a simple
> > > inscription shows how little Hebrew you know.
> >
> > It seems that in all the personal attacks, you forgot to
> > explain what makes this inscription "Proto-Sinaitic."
> > The inscription, in any case, is not Hebrew.
> >
> What is it then?

A Safaitic inscription from Umm el-Hawa (Jordan) dating
1st century BCE to 3rd century CE, apparently.

See here:
http://www.kah-bonn.de/presse_alt/fotouebersicht/f_jordanien_e.htm
http://www.art.com/asp/sp-asp/_/pd--11723680/sp--A/Stone_inscribed_with_a_dancer_flute_player_and_safaitic_inscription_1st_century_BC3rd_century_AD.htm#

Thanks goes to the people at sci.lang for helping me out
on this question:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.lang/browse_frm/thread/3e514e731ca8eecb/55041eff19d4004f#55041eff19d4004f

Yitzhak Sapir