Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Uri Hurwitz <uhurwitz AT yahoo.com>]

  Yitzhak Sapir  wrote:   
---------------------------------
  

On 5/25/06, Uri Hurwitz wrote:    >   What does Karl Randolph know about 
Mishnaic Hebrew, its structure,  >   morphology, verbal forms, lexical 
features?  >  >   Secondly, why discuss this at all in a list specifically 
dealing with  >   B-Hebrew?     

   Hello Yitzhak, 

   The previous discussion revolved aound the question whether

Mishnaic Heb. was spoken etc. Really no relevence here. 

I preferred not to enter it, though much can be said

 about the subject.

   As for your suggestions below, they're speculative, and unless

 they are supported by evidence, it is hard to comment

 on them.

    But here is a brief comment on "HMH" ,  "hemmah", (sorry I 

have no Heb. writing font here, though I can read it). It is

 part of a

 group of five words, all having an unexplained  Dagesh forte 

in the middle vowel:  Battim elleh lammah hemmah shammah.  

Grammarians noticed this in the MT vocalization and, having no

 explanation for this dubbed them "D'geshim for the glory of the

 reading"  (d'geshim

l'tiferet haqriah  - perhaps you you're familiar with

 this).

 The silent last syllable of 'hem" in the MT, does not neccessarily 

reflect earlier pronounciation, when the  final Mem could have

 been vowelled in pronounciation. Some evidence for that can be

 found in some DSS texts;note that I am careful in stating this. 

However,this would not explain the Dagesh.

     It is commonly known that the later biblical books clearly

 display some linguistic features which are assoicated with

  the Mishnaic language; Qohelet is a prime example. But

 here, as about everything in biblical studies, opinions 

 are not unanimous. Cf. the views of Ian Young, a very fine 

 scholar, with those of Avi Hurvitz (no relation of mine) who

 represents the majority opinion. I just mentioined two names 

  out of many.

     Uri

   

  

 

 

 

 

Dear Uri,    Biblical Hebrew as it is preserved with vocalization and the 
spelling of  the manuscripts most of us use, postdates Mishnaic times and is 
therefore  prone to the influence of Mishnaic Hebrew.  For example, for a 
long time, I  had felt that the vocalization of the word )t àú when suffixed, 
with a dagesh,  was an indication that it was probably meant to be pronounced 
as the word  òí with a suffix.  The "original" form of reading such a word 
would have been  with a holam and without a dagesh.  However, having seen 
recently that the  Amarna letters do preserve a form it-ti I am unsure about 
it.  Another  possible example is the word hemmah äîä that has a dagesh.  
Perhaps,  this was meant to indicate that the word was to be pronounced henna 
äðä.  Here, I am still not aware of any linguistic reason to place a dagesh 
in the  /m/, while such reasoning is available for the /n/.  In such a way 
the word  hemma äîä would work like the word hi) when spelled in the Torah the
  same as the masculine pronoun but pronounced differently.  Another  example 
I can think of is the use of the verb lq+ ì÷è in the Piel rather than  Qal.  
This would seem to be a late development.  Similarly, the shift of  words 
like "magdal" to "migdal" would also seem to postdate Mishnaic  times.  Thus, 
vocalization of the Biblical Hebrew would seem to require  and benefit from 
an understanding of the workings of Mishnaic Hebrew.  Furthermore, while 
consonantal differences from pre-Mishnaic times are  known to be relatively 
few, when they do occur they might also benefit  from such an understanding 
of Mishnaic Hebrew.    Yitzhak Sapir  http://toldot.blogspot.com  
  
---------------------------------
        
   Previous message: [b-hebrew] Hebrew a dead language?   
   Next message: [b-hebrew] Relevance of Mishnaic Hebrew to B-Hebrew   
   Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] 
  
---------------------------------
    More information about the b-hebrew mailing list



                
---------------------------------
Ring'em or ping'em. Make  PC-to-phone calls as low as 1¢/min with Yahoo! 
Messenger with Voice.
>From klriley AT alphalink.com.au  Thu May 25 21:47:19 2006
Return-Path: <klriley AT alphalink.com.au>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from mail3.alphalink.com.au (mail3.alphalink.com.au
        [202.161.124.195])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6F084C00B
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Thu, 25 May 2006 21:47:18 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from k (58-84-89-218.dial-lns5.vic.chariot.net.au [58.84.89.218])
        by mail3.alphalink.com.au (8.12.11.20060308/8.9.3) with ESMTP id
        k4Q1ksSD020236
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Fri, 26 May 2006 11:47:01 +1000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <44765DF6.00000B.56825@K>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 11:46:30 +1000 (AUS Eastern Standard Time)
Content-Type: Multipart/related; type="multipart/alternative";
        boundary="------------Boundary-00=_ILNUCJD0000000000000"
X-Mailer: IncrediMail (4002031)
From: "Kevin Riley" <klriley AT alphalink.com.au>
References: <20060525062749.k12x5qnz4ggow08k AT webmail.duke.edu>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
X-FID: PLAINTXT-NONE-0000-0000-000000000000
X-Priority: 3
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.8
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] the name Qumran
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.8
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: Fri, 26 May 2006 01:47:20 -0000


--------------Boundary-00=_ILNUCJD0000000000000
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

 =0D
 =0D
-------Original Message-------=0D
 =0D
From: goranson AT duke.edu=0D
Date: 05/25/06 20:27:49=0D
 =0D
Hi George,=0D
Yes, in the 1850s Felicien de Saulcy proposed that Qumran (which he spell=
ed=0D
Oumran and Goumran) was Biblical Gomorrah. Joan Taylor's 2002 PEQ article=
=0D
discusses this. He also located a ?pays des Ess=E9niens? between Wadi en-=
Nar=0D
or Qidron and ?in el-Ghuweir.=0D
<snip>=0D
best,=0D
Stephen Goranson=0D
http://www.duke.edu/~goranson=0D
 =0D
************************=0D
I know that both 'ayin [presumably reflected in "Oumran"] and /g/ [Goumra=
n]
are common pronunciations of /q/ in Arabic dialects, but how does he get
both as reflexes of an earlier ghayin?  Presumably a preserved Hebrew=20
ghayin' whould pass into Arabic unchanged.  If 'Goumran' is meant to star=
t
with 'ghayin', why would it become /q/?=0D
=0D
Kevin
--------------Boundary-00=_ILNUCJD0000000000000--