Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Randall:

On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 1:15 AM, Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com> wrote:

>
> The issue isn't 'modern' per se (bixvoda ube`atsma), but the
> advantage of fluency/internalization of any closely related
> dialect, especially one with close to 100% morphological
> overlap.
>
> Must travel.
> blessings
> Randall
>

The “close to 100% morphological overlap” are the worst.

I found I cannot read Shakespeare nor the KJV translation of the Bible
except very superficially and letting a lot of things I don’t understand
slide. It is not the words that have dropped out of use that are the
problem, rather those that have remained in the language but changed their
meanings.

Modern Hebrew is a different language from Biblical Hebrew in many ways.
>From what little I know, its verbal use is completely different. I don’t
know how many words have different meanings, but I suspect it is
substantial. But the “near 100% morphological overlap” insures  that there
are few, if any, visual clues for where one should use a Biblical use, and
where to use a modern use. It also insures that anyone who is fluent in
modern Hebrew but learning Biblical Hebrew, will tend to read modern uses
into the Biblical text because there are no obvious clues when it should be
read differently and when it should be read the same.

Karl W. Randolph.