Biblical Hebrew Forum

["K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Yitzhak:

On 3/10/07, Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Rolf,
>
> ...
> > I am open for the possibility that the same verb form could and can be used
> > with different senses. In Akkadian, for example, it is the short IPRUS, 
> which often
> > refer to the past, that is used in the wish-form precative. And we have a 
> similar
> > sitution in Ugaritic. But the point I very often have stressed is that in 
> order to use
> > such  multiple functions in a grammatical theory, we must demonstrate its 
> existence,
> > not just assume it. That is the reason why I refuse to deal with concepts 
> such as
> > Proto-Semitic or Proto-Hebrew, and that I challenge those who believe that 
> the
> > antecedent of WAYYIQTOL is an old short preterit, to prove it. I agree with 
> you
> > that there are remnants in the Hebrew of the Tanakh of stems that earlier 
> were
> > used; there is, for example just a single verb in the causative-reflexive 
> stem.
>
> Well, as I suppose you probably know, the advance of scholars towards
> analysis of "waw-conversive" as in fact waw-consecutive before a preterite was
> grounded in advances in scholarship in the Amarna texts.  It was the Amarna
> texts which led to a renewed analysis of the Biblical verb forms on the basis
> of those texts.  I am not sure why you think that claims regarding 
> Proto-Hebrew
> cannot be utilized because its existence is not "proven" but "assumed"
> -- do you
> simply deny that Amarna vocables can teach us about an earlier stage of the
> Hebrew language?  do you deny that cognate languages such as Aramaic or
> Ugaritic can teach us about this earlier stage of the Hebrew language / Proto-
> Hebrew?  What have Comparative Semitists been doing for the last hundred
> years if not to demonstrate an Afroasiatic (and daughter stage - 
> Proto-Semitic)
> language?
> ...
>
> Yitzhak Sapir.

You are straying outside of linguistics that can be studied, to
philosophy/religion accepted on blind faith.

In studying Biblical Hebrew, all we have is the text, and a few
ostraca and inscriptions to go on. The Masoretic points are post
Biblical additions, which no one will deny. The earliest extent copies
of the Biblical text are the DSS. Now to the text.

I have previously pointed out that the text of the early chapters of
Exodus gives references to actions that occurred during the Hyksos
period. Therefore, if Moses wrote Torah (except possibly the last
chapter of Deuteronomy), and you cannot prove that he didn't other
than by faith, a faith that many of us do not ascribe to, if Moses
wrote of the Hyksos period that would indicate that Biblical Hebrew
was spoken as a distinct language cognate to, though separate from and
prior to, the language spoken and recorded in the Tell Amarna letters.
The same goes for the extant Ugaritic writings.

I have never denied that a study of cognate languages can sometimes
help with the study of Biblical Hebrew. All I emphasize is that any
such study must recognize that cognate languages are not the same and
can actually lead to incorrect conclusions if not treated carefully.

A true scientist does not base his work of speculation, but on what
can be observed. Proto-Hebrew, along with proto-Semitic, are based
totally on speculation, albeit educated speculation, because there are
no examples of either to study. There are many besides Rolf who reject
references to a putative proto-Hebrew as being outside the realm of
proper scholarly studies.

Karl W. Randolph.