Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Randall:

On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 4:58 AM, Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com> wrote:

> …
>
> On a public elist any theory can be proposed, but they are not all
> equally probable or possible. For example, one of your responses
> proposed:
>
> >I previously mentioned that I think Biblical Hebrew was a CV
> (Consonant/Vowel) language (like Japanese) where every consonant was
> followed by a vowel. That would make YHWH a four syllable name. I took that
> a step further and said that there were no materes lectionis, that waw and
> yod never stood for a vowel in Biblical Hebrew, rather that every time that
> we find waw or yod in the text, it is to be pronounced as a consonant. When
> I try reading Biblical Hebrew poetry using these rules, I notice that there
> is a very definite rhythm, or beat, to the text that does not exist using
> other pronunciation rules. Does this prove my supposition? No, but it is
> evidence for it.
> >
> >I acknowledge that my theory may be wrong. But I do not consider evidence
> from the Masoretes as valid evidence against my theory."
>
> At least he acknowledges that his theory 'may' be wrong. Again, from
> comparative linguistics, Semitists know that his theory IS wrong. It
> cannot explain the development of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Ge'ez and Arabic
> with their rich, genetically-related morphologies that all include CVC
> patterns,
> none of which supports the view that proto-western Semitic was ever a
> CV language. For that matter, even Afro-Asiatic does not appear to have
> been a CV language. Even if it were, in the unrecoverable mists,
> CVC syllables developed long before Semitic divided into West and
> East or the West divided into North and South,
> or the NorthWest divided into Cana`anite and Aramaic.
> So not only did Biblical Hebrew have CVC syllables, but proto-Hebrew as
> well.
>
> From your response, I conclude that you do not believe that the Bible is
accurate history; in particular, the account of the Tower of Babel.

The reason I reject your theory is not because I believe the Bible (though
personally that is one reason) but because it is speculation with no written
evidence to back it up, namely that there ever was such a language as
proto-Semetic or Afro-Asiatic. And given the human propensity for acting in
unpredictable ways, there is no way to state for certain what patterns those
languages had, if they existed.

The only evidence you have that Hebrew was a CVC language comes from
post-Babylonian Exile times, at a time long after when I think evidence
indicates that the language ceased to be a mother tongue, and the
pronunciation patterns had been imposed from another, cognate language that
was a CVC language, namely Aramaic.


> --
> Randall Buth, PhD
> www.biblicalulpan.org
> randallbuth AT gmail.com
> Biblical Language Center
> Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life
>
> Karl W. Randolph.