Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Bryant J. Williams III" <bjwvmw AT com-pair.net>]

Dear Yitzhak and Karl,


I would appreciate if you both would stick to the subject matter at hand, and
STOP, the other remarks. It is unprofessional, unscholarly, and lacks 
integrity
on both parties. If you disagree with what one is saying about CV endings 
versus
CVC endings, then show the progression/evidence in a way that even a
kindergartener can understand it (Remember KISS - Keep It Simple Stu...). If 
one
is not able to show the progression/evidence, but can only give conjecture 
with
the use of "may," "might," "could have," etc., then so be it and leave it at
that. But, at this time, it appears that both are talking past one another.

Peter may correct me if I am wrong, but all we have is the Hebrew text. Using
cognate languages can help in guiding us to a conclusion, but Arabic is too 
late
to be of any help in discerning the workings of the Hebrew language. Aramaic,
Ugaritic, etc., are closer and can be more useful. Furthermore, trying to date
portions of the Hebrew text based on pre-conceived notions as to when a text 
was
written is clearly asking for trouble. Now, I do agree that, in general, the
Pentateuch was written before the prophets and almost all of the Psalms. Yet 
is
clear that some portions of the Tanakh was written at different times. It is
also clear that some editing did go on. But it is clear that we are 
speculating
at exact times. The evidence cannot be any more exact unless the text clearly
states the times.

So, PLEASE, REFRAIN FROM PERSONAL, OR EVEN, HINTING, OF ATTACKS UPON one's
character, person, education, et cetera. I do believe that they are not 
allowed
according to this lists protocol's. Otherwise, agree to disagree and MOVE ON.

If I have overstepped the limits of this thread and list protocol, since I am
not a moderator, then I ask your forgiveness. That was surely not my intent.

Thank You En Xristwi,

Rev. Bryant J. Williams III
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 09:22 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] CV syllables, was music in Hebrew


> 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
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
> For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a courtesy of
Com-Pair Services!
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.7/259 - Release Date: 02/13/2006
>
>


For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a courtesy of 
Com-Pair Services!