Biblical Hebrew Forum

[ISAAC FRIED <if AT math.bu.edu>]

All this is patently unnecessary. All you need to know is this:  
Hebrew word (sans prepositions) = root +pronouns.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Mar 17, 2010, at 11:42 AM, Randall Buth wrote:

> Karl, in the midst of your comments
> (not all within list etiquette but that is a different issue),
> there is a basic issue that could be discussed as a thread.
>
> Consequently, I have re-titled the thread,
> The "scope of data for correctly appraising BH”,
> since this issue is not directly related to Greek vowels.
>
> I don’t think that there should be much disagreement on the scope  
> of the
> data, at least by Hebraists.
>
> > > One of the things that often happens is that the 'non-professional'
> > > puts forth highly implausible theories based on an incomplete
> > > acquaintance with the data.
>
> > Correction, the data is the consonantal text of Tanakh. We all are  
> > dealing
> > with the same data. Where we differ is in the interpretation of  
> > and the
> > conclusions derived from said data.
>
> Here is a substantive difference. The consonantal text of the  
> tana”x is
> only part of data. One must include epigraphic texts from the area and
> time periods, spelling and morphological developments between 1st  
> and 2nd
> Temple Hebrew,and one must include the relationships, especially
> morphological and structural parallels with related languages like
> Phoenician, Ugaritic, El Amarna Canaanite, Moabite, Ammonite, Aramaic
> in its many dialects, and then the trajectory of Hebrew itself through
> Dead Sea Hebrew and mishnaic Hebrew and Masoretic Hebrew (plus more  
> than
> one written tradition and/or recorded tradition of these) and Karaite
> and Samaritan traditions, not to mention farther-related languages  
> Arabic
> and Akkadian, South Arabic and Ge`ez. Languages are like living
> organisms, they grow and change, but they are also connected. One must
> come up with a theory that reasonably explains the relationships.  
> E.g.,
> both vowel and consonant phonemic length are necessary in order to
> explain these languages. Sometimes differences like a shift in  
> Phoenician
> from ‘a’ to ‘o’ while others are ‘a’ to ‘u’ are best explained as two
> different lengths or different syllable accent patterns of ‘a’. So  
> both the
> internal evidence of Phoenician/Punic and its relationship to  
> Biblical Hebrew
> throughout the First and Second Temple are part of the evidence.  
> Another
> fairly simple example are the nouns belonging to a Consonant- 
> shortVowel-
> Consonant-Consonant pattern found in all the Semitic languages. These
> need a reasonable explanation. One cannot just jump into the  
> middle, make
> a CVCVCV claim, and then declare all other evidence ‘speculation’ or
> ‘unrelated’. It’s all related, and a good theory reasonably  
> explains the
> whole as well as the parts. And a person needs some expertise in
> linguistics in order to evaluate developmental probabilities in these
> languages. (Just like a conversant with Niels Bohr needs to be able to
> discuss the Lorentz transformations or Shroedinger equations. The
> statement“Karl: ‘to which Niels cheerfully answered ...’” implies  
> that the
> conversational partner knew the relevant data AND the possibilities of
> appropriate and inappropriate application.)
> So your ‘correction’ is not acceptable to Hebraists or to  
> Semitists. It
> is artificially limiting the data and excluding evidence that would
> otherwise render some proposals as ‘non-theories’ and ‘unacceptable’.
>
> [[(Karl)
> > Or how about the implausible theory that when a participle is used in
> > a conversational sentence that in English is translated as a verb,  
> > that
> > it refers to present, ongoing activity in a similar manner as modern
> > Hebrew, made implausible by verses such as Genesis 19:13 and
> > 1 Samuel 3:11,  not counting the many cases among prophecies given in
> > a conversational manner, where a participle refers to a future event?
> > You need to consider all the data.
>
> This comment doesn’t relate to this new thread, but it does  
> represent a
> mis-reading of what I said. I did not claim that the only function or
> application of a BH participle was to an actual present situation. So
> these last two comments can be deleted from this thread. ]]
>
> [Karl]> >> not through the glasses put on by long training in the
> > > > traditions. The old school doesn’t like people like me, as we often
> > > > upset the apple cart.
> [RB]>> Actually,
> > > the 'long training' of most Semitists is not in the 'traditions' but
> > > in the data.
>
> [Karl]> It is traditions, more than the hard data.
>
> Logically, how can a person who was ‘not-trained’ reliably evaluate  
> the
> training that they didn’t have? (They might show differences between
> systems, but if the untrained person has not reasonably explained the
> relevant data, then any negative evaluation would remain unreliable.)
> Most of what I have seen in grad schools revolves around reading
> actual texts. The theories are relatively brief, easy to grasp, and
> then discussed in relationship to data where relevant.   E.g.,
> in Ugaritic we don’t know the shape of the fem plural prefix verb  
> suffix.
> Was it –an (//Aramaic) or was it –na (//Canaanite-Hebrew), or -anna?
> We don’t know.
> Students are expected to know the state of the art, but it is a
> discussion of data in relationship to theories of what is known and of
> what is probable. Portraying this as “tradition” is a mis- 
> representation
> of conscientious scholarship.
>
> [Karl]> >> Nor have we learned to worship the gods of political
> > > > correctness. For example, who is that schmuck Gesenius that I  
> > > > should
> > > > listen to him? Or how about HALOT? I exaggerate here.
> . . .
> [Karl]> Your reaction (which I did not reproduce) is exactly the  
> type of
> > “worship the gods of political correctness” that my statement  
> > parodied.
>
> The appropriate response might have been to apologize for  
> inappropriately
> calling Gesenius a pejorative name. I will let the moderators  
> decide if
> you should receive further caution.
> Your ‘hissey-fit’ comment at another point in your last post  
> doesn’t help
> your cause, and yes, it too, is inappropriate and emotional.
>
> [Karl]
> > Randall: you have studied theoretical works on grammar, comparative
> > linguistics, and so forth. But have you ever just sat down and read
> > Tanakh, cover to cover, merely for the purpose of understanding it?
> > Even once? Translating doesn’t count, as the emphasis is not on the
> > Hebrew, rather on rendering the ideas understood into the target
> > language. Nor does for purposes of scholarly analysis, as the  
> > emphasis
> > is on the analysis, not on internalizing the meaning, feel and  
> > flow of
> > the language. I would not be surprised if an honest answer is,  
> > “Not even
> > once.”
>
> Well it’s good that you don’t include “translating”, since that  
> doesn’t
> relate to real language experience. When someone is functioning in
> a language they are not usually translating, unless providing help
> for someone outside the discussion. So - - -
> Let’s see -- reading the tana”x, cover to cover? [first—I don’t  
> read it in
> English or autre langue, though I did once in ‘69.]
> The first time that I remember cover-to-cover Hebrew was 1975, and  
> again
> in 1977. That was 35 years ago, and I don’t count or keep records of
> reading pleasure, though I tend to read by book, sometimes at a  
> sitting,
> or the annual parashot cycle of torah, rather than end-to-end  
> canonical
> order.
> Maybe another relevant question would be to ask the opposite:
> how many times has someone mis-read the text? If someone were reading
> the consonantal text with only CVCVCV patterns, or if one doesn’t
> recognize an infinitive absolute structure being used for a finite  
> verb,
> then someone else may have legitimate doubts about just what
> “language” is being read by such a claimant. A CVCVCV language is
> neither First Temple BH, nor Second Temple BH.
> So I suggest dropping ‘personalities’ and following this thread.
>
> Just what are the relevant data?
> And maybe a side question, does the sum of the data allow for a
> reasonable CVCVCV claim for Biblical Hebrew? No one that I know,
> who is competent to evaluate such data, considers CVCVCV to be a
> possibility.At this point a ‘consensus’ may be useful. If someone is
> unacquainted withthe scope of the data, then they need to be referred
> to people who are so acquainted. This is not ‘bowing to dogma’ but
> filling out background where someone is lacking background.
>
> > (By the way, is there a list of lexical items that are found in  
> > the LXX
> > but not in the New Testament? It would be helpful to me when
> > referencing the LXX in these discussions. Thank you.)
>
> As for a list of LXX vocab not appearing in the GNT, that can be  
> generated
> from a program like Accordance. But the ouput will run about 8000  
> lines
> and is not appropriate to the list. In the meantime, for vocab,  
> there is
> a new LXX lexicon (that I do not own), and Liddel-Scott-M-J will  
> usually
> list any special usage found in the LXX. The Hatch-Redpath hard copy
> concordance is still available and I find it useful, even in these  
> days of
> software data searches. There is also a reverse Heb-Greek  
> ‘expanded’ index
> that was prepared by Elmar Dos Rios Santos [Jerusalem: Dugit] (out of
> print, but more useful than the newer publication by Muraoka.)
> Hope that helps.
>
> blessings
> Randall Buth
>
>
>
> --
> Randall Buth, PhD
> www.biblicalulpan.org
> randallbuth AT gmail.com
> Biblical Language Center
> Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew