Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Hebrew a dead language?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Hebrew a dead language?
  • Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 21:20:07 -0500

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/





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page