Biblical Hebrew Forum

[James Read <J.Read-2 AT sms.ed.ac.uk>]

Hi,

Quoting Yodan <yodan AT yodanco.com>:

> At the risk of an unpleasant response,

No unpleasantness should be necessary. It's a perfectly reasonable  
question to which there is a simple answer.

> I have to ask: Who exactly is "we"?

We was not meant in the sense of you and I. It was used to the sense  
of the collective knowledge that we as a human race that researches  
this kind of thing. It was not to imply that you first learned Latin  
and then Greek and then Hebrew. It was just to show that most of what  
we think we know about the language has come through this transmission  
sequence.

> I didn't know/think that this group's members have all the same
> background/knowledge, and that their knowledge of Hebrew comes from Greek,
> Latin, etc.

Agreed.

> Some in this group (including myself) know Hebrew through Hebrew. Not
> through Greek, not through Latin, not through any translation of Latin.


> And while my Hebrew is probably not pronounced exactly like the Hebrew
> spoken in Biblical times or when the Hebrew Bible was written, my knowledge
> is not based on Greek, etc. but on the Hebrew that was passed from
> generation to generation.

Now I really don't think you can substantiate that statement. What you  
have just said is like a Creole speaking pigeon English to claim that  
they have received English passed down from generation to generation  
and thus perfectly understands and reads Beowulf in its original  
language.

The simple facts of the matter are that Hebrew is a dead language. If  
I choose a dead language and a group of friends to revive it with that  
does not make it a language that never died and has been passed down  
to us with unbroken tradition through the generations.

Most of what we can confirm about the meanings of Hebrew words comes  
to us through our (collective) knowledge knowledge of the language it  
was transmitted through, using context where it helps and as a last  
resort the analysis of cognates.

> I believe that knowledge of ancient Greek is probably helpful in order to
> understand certain aspects of ancient Hebrew (as it was expressed in LXX),
> but to imply that "we" know Hebrew from a translation of Latin is incorrect.

Again, I do not mean 'we' as in you and I and the other list members.  
I meant it in the generic sense. I hope this was clear to others. I  
didn't realise at the time that the statement could be ambiguous.

James Christian

> The use of "I" or "some of us" would have been better in your post so as not
> to imply including those who have a different connection to Hebrew.
>
>
>
> Bruryah Yodan
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
> [mailto:b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of James Read
> Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 12:17 AM
> To: Kevin Riley
> Cc: 'B-Hebrew'
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Dagesh - a different sound or aspiration?
>
>
>
> I've tried to stay out of this but I can't resist any longer.
>
>
>
> Basically, these are the simple linguistic facts of the matter:
>
>
>
> 1) We know Hebrew mainly through Greek
>
> 2) We know Greek mainly through Latin
>
> 3) We know Latin mainly through our translations from Latin
>
> 4) When we transliterated Hebrew names from Latin the limitations of
>
> the naturally sounding sequences of phonemes and of our alphabet
>
> caused us to lose/change features of the latin vocalisation
>
> 4) When those before us transliterated Hebrew names from Greek into
>
> Latin the limitations of naturally sounding sequences of phonemes and
>
> of the Latin alphabet caused them to lose/change features of the Greek
>
> vocalisation
>
> 5) When those before they transliterated Hebrew names from Hebrew into
>
> Greek the limitations of naturally sounding sequences of phonemes and
>
> of the Greek alphabet caused them to lose/change features of the
>
> Hebrew vocalisation
>
> 6) Add into this the hearing factor (I've been living in Ukraine now,
>
> on and off, for 3 years and while I can hear the very subtle
>
> difference in their L's I still can't pronounce the difference very
>
> well. To them there is a world of difference. Just as to us there is a
>
> world of difference between 'r' and 'l' but to others not so great) to
>
> make the situation worse
>
> 7) We have some old documents which refer to the system but it is not
>
> altogether clear if we are reading them or understanding them right
>
>
>
> In short, any kind of 'concensus' is practically meaningless to any of
>
> the list members or to any earnest student of Hebrew who wants to hear
>
> evidence of the matter so they can decide for themselves.
>
>
>
> I vaguely recollect delving into this at some point to see if there
>
> was some kind of consistency to any of the theories and comparing with
>
> Greek transliterations of Hebrew names I saw that consistency of any
>
> kind just goes right out of the window. I think this is especially
>
> true of a text which was meticulously copied consonant by consonant
>
> thus resisting evolution of language while the pronunciation of the
>
> language itself did not have such a restraint. Would you not agree
>
> that whatever convention the Masoretes decided on it is an almost
>
> impossible task to define a consisent system of any kind whatsoever
>
> unless you are willing to write everything in IPA.
>
>
>
> However, even if we wrote everything in IPA we would need to provide a
>
> database of recordings of which phones we associated (at this time)
>
> with each IPA symbol so that later generations could reliably decide
>
> the matter with any kind of conviction.
>
>
>
> In fact, the question then arises "Is IPA complete? Will it still be
>
> complete (using the same symbols) after 2000 years of linguistic
>
> evolution?".
>
>
>
> James Christian
>
>
>
> Quoting Kevin Riley <klriley AT alphalink.com.au>:
>
>
>
> > The timing of the sound changes in Greek is still disputed, but generally
> I
>
> > think that aspirated and voiced stops are considered to have become
> spirants
>
> > by about the C3rd CE, probably before.  How much of that is reflected in
> the
>
> > Septuagint is anyone's guess.  My main point was that the change in Greek,
>
> > and also the alternation in Spanish of bdg between voiced stops and
>
> > spirants, is not accompanied by any change in the alphabet.  The Masoretes
>
> > seem to have wanted to maintain the consonantal text intact and also
>
> > indicate the pronunciation for chanting/reading.  Hence the use of dagesh
>
> > and all the other marks.  If the similar change in Aramaic occurred before
>
> > the Aramaic alphabet was adopted, then the double pronunciation of the
>
> > bgdkpt letters in Aramaic would have been carried over into Hebrew without
>
> > any need to change letters.
>
> >
>
> > Kevin Riley
>
> >
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
>
> > > From: Vadim Cherny [mailto:vadimcherny AT gmail.com]
>
> > > Sent: Monday, 24 August 2009 6:01 AM
>
> > >
>
> > > Thanks. What about the absence of dagesh from LXX? Ok, we can take it
>
> > > that beta in LXX can mean both [bh]  and [v], but there are Latin
>
> > > transliterations where we would expect b and v differentiated.
>
> > >
>
> > > I don't know about Spanish and other languages, but isn't [b/v]
>
> > > differentiation of beta in Greek relatively modern, the ancient
>
> > > pronunciation being just a bit aspirated?
>
> > >
>
> > > Vadim Cherny
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > Kevin Riley wrote:
>
> > > > The second is the consensus.  And whether it 'goes against our
>
> > understanding
>
> > > > of the alphabet' or not, it is also found in Greek and Spanish, as well
>
> > as a
>
> > > > number of lesser known languages.  Where lenition is predictable from
>
> > the
>
> > > > context (e.g  between vowels) it is not marked in any way.  The
> evidence
>
> > > > from modern Aramaic dialects/languages as well as the traditional
>
> > > > pronunciation schemes for Hebrew support this conclusion for Aramaic
> and
>
> > > > Hebrew.
>
> > > >
>
> > > > Kevin Riley
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > _______________________________________________
>
> > b-hebrew mailing list
>
> > b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
>
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
>
> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> b-hebrew mailing list
>
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
>
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew



--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.