Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Kevin Riley" <klriley AT alphalink.com.au>]

I was not aware that your conclusion on Hebrew had become a consensus.  Last
I did reading on the subject, many (most, I thought) scholars were still of
the opinion that most of the text as we have it was written much later and
over a much shorter period.  But I would like to see the discussion move to
centre much more on Hebrew verbs rather than 'plod', a word I very rarely
hear used.  Proving that 'plod' does or does not have uncancellable meaning
and what it is does not really tell me much at all about Hebrew.  The
question for me still remains: what do the Hebrew verbs encode?  I cannot
see that the Hebrews would have persisted with both Qtl and Yqtl if they
meant the same thing, so while I see Rolf's work as a contribution to the
quest to understand the Hebrew verbal system, I am not convinced it is the
last word, or even that it will constitute a major part of the final answer.
 Each time this discussion is held I understand his view a little better,
but the chasing of other issues (like what 'plod' means in various types do
English) rarely adds much to the discussion.  I am hoping at some stage to
find Rolf's work in a book at a reasonable cost so I can spend a few
leisurely evenings reading through it.

Kevin Riley
 
-------Original Message------- 
From: K Randolph 
Date: 26/06/2009 4:22:16 AM 
 
Now back to Biblical Hebrew: during the time it was written, from 
About 1400–400 BC, it remained remarkably stable, with almost no 
Change in lexicography and grammar. There are changes in literary 
Style that are recognizable, but we don’t find lexicographic (words 
That change meanings) nor grammar changes. So for the Hebrew used 
Within that period, it is possible that there were uncancellable 
Meanings that were valid neither for cognate languages such as 
Aramaic, nor for Mishnaic and later Hebrews. The question is, did Rolf 
Correctly identify those uncancellable meanings? 
 
Karl W. Randolph.