Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Uri Hurwitz <uhurwitz AT yahoo.com>]

     Dear Herman,
   
     Without elaborating on Yigal's words,  please consider the following:
   
     Despite the obvious differences between BH and MH any speaker or reader 
of 
    modern Hebrew  does not have the slightest difficulty understaning 
biblical
    narratives. Genesis, Judges,  Samuel , for example, with the exception of 
    obscurities, will be linguistically as clear to such an individual
    as would be the morning paper or the current newsbroadcast . Poetry is a
    different matter.
   
     As I said, Yigal explained the reasons for it.
   
     Uri
   
   
   
    
---------------------------------
  
Dear Yigal,    Of course you are right about Modern Hebrew and Biblical 
Hebrew not  differing as much as say Sanskrit and Hindi or Gothic and Dutch, 
even  though the time gap between the two is similar.    Nevertheless, 
BHebrew and ModHebrew most definitely *are* two  different languages. At the 
very least scientifically speaking (I mean  I don't think there'll be any 
linguist around defending the view they  are one and the same language) but I 
think most Israeli's will admit  that the entire BH syntax is not theirs. If 
you'd speak BHebrew in the  streets, everyone will recognise it immediately 
and you'll be laughed  at. Why do we even need so many different 
dictionaries?  By your definition, Dutch and Afrikaans wouldn't be 2 
different  languages either. However, we translate quite a few Afrikaans 
books  into Dutch. And we subtitle South-Africans on tv.    I maintain it 
would be very refreshing to translate úð"ê into  ModHebrew. For the same 
reason that I can understand Medieval
 Dutch,  yet the danger of misunderstanding something that doesn't really 
mean  what I think it means, is there in every other sentence.    When I 
learned BHebrew myself, there was an Israeli student in  university (learning 
Arabic, Aramaic and stuff). She attended the  classes but she said "it's my 
language anyway, so I won't really have  to be there." However, she stayed 
until the end, and was surprised to  see how different it really is, if you 
go into syntax, mostly the  verbs of course; and even semantics can be quite 
deceiving.    Modern Hebrew looks much more like Tannaic Hebrew and Medieval 
Hebrew  than like BHebrew, and is not so much a reincarnation of BHebrew, as 
a  continuation of the later phases.    I'd be happy to participate in this 
translation to Modern Hebrew, by the way.  Of course, I know it's some kind 
of a taboo in Israel. And publishers  will worry about sales. Although it 
could be hyped to a best-seller.  I'll contact my agent ;)    Regards  Herman 
     


                
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail
Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail  makes sharing a breeze. 
>From kwrandolph AT email.com  Sun Feb 26 09:21:19 2006
Return-Path: <kwrandolph AT email.com>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from webmail-outgoing.us4.outblaze.com
        (webmail-outgoing.us4.outblaze.com [205.158.62.67])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EED44C012
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Sun, 26 Feb 2006 09:21:19 -0500 
(EST)
Received: from unknown (unknown [192.168.9.180])
        by webmail-outgoing.us4.outblaze.com (Postfix) with QMQP id
        CCAE618001BC
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Sun, 26 Feb 2006 14:21:15 +0000 
(GMT)
X-OB-Received: from unknown (205.158.62.50)
        by wfilter.us4.outblaze.com; 26 Feb 2006 14:21:18 -0000
Received: by ws1-4.us4.outblaze.com (Postfix, from userid 1001)
        id B4628164278; Sun, 26 Feb 2006 14:21:18 +0000 (GMT)
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>
To: b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 09:21:18 -0500
Received: from [69.226.237.3] by ws1-4.us4.outblaze.com with http for
        kwrandolph AT email.com; Sun, 26 Feb 2006 09:21:18 -0500
X-Originating-Ip: 69.226.237.3
X-Originating-Server: ws1-4.us4.outblaze.com
Message-Id: <20060226142118.B4628164278 AT ws1-4.us4.outblaze.com>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] translation v. interpretation
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6
Precedence: list
List-Id: Hebrew Bible List <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 14:21:19 -0000

Actually, Yigal:

I can't read modern Hebrew because:

1) I don't know the modern vocabulary

2) I don't know the modern grammar

3) the spellings look wierd.

What that has allowed me to do is to concentrate=20
on learning one dialect of Hebrew and learning it=20
well. Thus when I saw the "Josiah stone" I found=20
several features in the text that didn't feel right=20
long before I reached the (SH BZQ that others=20
recognized as modern usage.

Karl W. Randolph.

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Yigal Levin" <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>
>=20
>=20
> Actually, Karl, MH is much closer to BH than modern Greek is to classical
> Greek. The reason is simple: Greek has evolved "naturally" over the
> centuries. Hebrew has not. To a very great extent, Hebrew stopped being u=
sed
> as a spoken language sometime around the begining of the CE. And while it
> was used and did develop over the centuries, users of Hebrew have always
> considered the Bible as the fundamental text of the language. So much so
> that when MH was "invented" during the late 19th century, the founders
> usually prefered using BH over Mishnaic, Talmudic or medieval Hebrew.
>=20
> Israelis "not understanding" Tanakh is much more a social issue than a
> linguistic one. As is non-Israeli Bible scholars being able to get away w=
ith
> not reading scholarship in MH. Could you imagine a scholar of medieval
> French literature not reading modern French?
>=20
> Yigal

--=20
___________________________________________________
Play 100s of games for FREE! http://games.mail.com/