Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Herman:

What I have admitted at the outset is that the 
evidence for either understanding is inconclusive, 
subject to interpretation. Under such circumstances 
the temptation exists to try to speak louder with 
more force, hoping that decibels will make up for 
unsure data. I know I sometimes fall for that 
temptation, as evidenced in a couple of the 
exchanges I have participated in on this list 
previously.

Because of the lack of data, I see no use to trying 
to rehash the question, unless new evidence can be 
adduced.

You mentioned a couple of examples which you 
believe are convincing, in particular your Adan and 
Nitpael examples. But I find them unconvincing, in 
particular in light of other evidence of language 
development that you discount. Adan looks like a 
case of Aramaic influence on Mishnaic Hebrew which 
shows up because Hebrew was still written at least 
partially phonetically. As for the nitpael, just a 
development of spoken language that can occur, 
still not proof that Hebrew was learned at a 
mother’s knee. Just because the users of Latin 
maintain a certain conservatism of morphology and 
writing, does not mean that the writers of Mishnaic 
Hebrew practiced the same conservatism.

If we don’t even agree on the evidence, how can we 
ever come to an agreement on the conclusions?

Yours respectfully, Karl W. Randolph.

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Herman Meester" <crazymulgogi AT gmail.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. 
> ....
> 
> 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.
> ...
> 
> 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

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