Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Herman:

Huh?

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Herman Meester" <crazymulgogi AT gmail.com>
> 
> Dear Karl,
> 
> Your suppositions on the one hand, and mine on the other, differ to such an
> extent that reaching agreement on these issues will be very hard.
> There are, however, some fundamental problems to your approach, and I wonder
> what you would do with them.
> One of them is the syntax, morphology and vocabulary of the Mishnah's
> Hebrew. The three of them point to Hebrew being a spoken language for
> centuries after the Babylonian Exile. At the very least,
> rabbinic/mishnaic/tannaic Hebrew or whatever name we give it, must be taken
> into account when we address this "spoken/dead language"-issue.

This goes back to the definition of "dead 
language". If your sole determinant is a language 
that is still spoken is not dead, then Latin is not 
a dead language, as it is still spoken. And it is 
still changing.

But if your definition concerns a language that is 
learned at one's mother's knee, then Latin is dead.

Your references to rabbinic/Mishnaic/tannaic Hebrew 
are a red herring, as they could occur even with a 
language that is "live" according to the first 
definition above, but "dead" according to the 
second definition above.

> My question to you would be, how do you explain misnaic Hebrew syntax,
> morphology and vocabulary?

See above.

> * How do you explain a word like le-hitqalles להתקלס, derived 
> of καλος?

The Biblical term has the sense of amusement in the 
sense of making fun of, which has no relationship 
with the Greek word "kalos".

> * How the new "hybrid" verb form nitpael נתפעל?

Morphologically, this is a first person plural Hitpael.

> * How can we explain the use of the word Adan אדן (=BH Adam אדם)?
> * How the pseudo-hif`il verb le-hatchil להתחיל, denominative of techilla
> תחלה?
> None of this could have happened if Hebrew is not one's mother tongue, and
> all of it happened way after the Babylonian Exile.
> 
Are all these examples from Mishnaic Hebrew?

Yes, these changes could occur even in a language 
that is not one's mother tongue, especially if it 
is not one's mother tongue but still spoken.

An example of a "dead" language that was still 
spoken and changing was brought out in Luther's 
debate with John Eck: Luther was able to document 
how Latin had changed so that certain documents 
that John Eck cited were later forgeries, therefore 
inadmissible in the debate.

There is no reason to assume that Mishnaic Hebrew 
was different from medieval Latin in this regard. 
And it is no more proof that Mishnaic Hebrew was a 
mother tongue.

> best regards,
> Herman
> Rotterdan
> 
>

We have no documentary proof that Mishnaic Hebrew 
was not a mother tongue. Nor that it was. So to try 
to argue the point is pointless, at least not 
without more data than is presently on the table.

While I believe that Mishnaic Hebrew was not a 
mother tongue, I am trying to shut down this debate 
in an amicable manner because, as far as I can 
tell, there is not enough data to prove either 
side. To support amity among our group, let's say 
neither side wins.

Regards, Karl W. Randolph.

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