Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Herman Meester" <crazymulgogi AT gmail.com>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Herman Meester <crazymulgogi AT gmail.com>
Date: 23-mei-2006 9:24
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Hebrew a dead language?
To: Karl Randolph <kwrandolph AT email.com>



2006/5/23, 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.


Morphologically?

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.


It is very hard to explain the final m>n change if you treat Hebrew as
church Latin in this way.

> 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".


I was not referring to the biblical QLS, but to the later (HT)QLS which
means "extol, praise".
However, I now realise we have to keep this example out because it may be an
Aramaic loan too.

> * How the new "hybrid" verb form nitpael נתפעל?
>
> Morphologically, this is a first person plural Hitpael.


No, it's a third person singular. I didn't make up some example out of
context, the nitpael is a well-known part of the paradigm in the Hebrew I
refer to.

> * 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.
> >
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.


As I said, the ADAN אדן case, and in fact a mass of other cases, like IM ~>
IN verbal/nominal endings, are typically things that occur *only* if Hebrew
was commonly spoken in the streets and at dinner tables. Aramaic has no word
ADAN, so a loan is not the case.
In fact, in medieval manuscripts we see that words like ADAN are "corrected"
again by scribes to ADAM. Meaning they thought "what kind of funny Hebrew is
that?" meaning they had as their reference the biblical standard - unlike
their "Adan"-saying ancestors. If Hebrew had been "spoken but not learned at
one's mothers knees" one would take certain standards, conservatively, for
example in spelling and morphology.

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.


The issue is that we have to look at what is more probable. Historians
always have to work with problematic evidence, and documentary proof in the
form of a talmudic or Josephus statement "BTW for you guys in the 21st
century, keep in mind that Hebrew was sort of a semi-dead but still spoken
language after the Exile" is not what we would expect. It all comes down to
sound linguistic reasoning.

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.


But why would a discussion have anything to do with amity or the opposite?
I don't mind shutting debates down; too bad though, we can't work out the
Adan and Nitpael-examples then.

best regards,
Herman