Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com>]

>Define “technical training” when it comes to linguistics.

Maybe, like being able to understand phonemic systems and
phonemic change, so as to evaluate historical linguistic relationships,
so that one would know if the Semitic languages had CVC
patterns.   They do.

>> CVCVCVCV turns out to be chaff and not Biblical Hebrew.
>> We certainly differ there.
>
>How do you know? The only data you show is from a millennium and more
>later.

You don't listen or remember very well. Once you hear the word 'Masoretic'
you seem to think that your 'time dodge' is valid.
Repeating it only means that you either don't listen or don't understand.
My opinion is 'both', but either would suffice as an explanation.

Akkadian, Arabic, Geez, Ugaritic, Hebrew, and Aramaic are all related and
their cognate morphology needs to be explained. In past posts you have
complained that semantics shift and introduce 'uncertainly' in lexicography.
That is a 'dodge', because lots of core vocabulary remains relatively stable
over millenia, and because the morphology shifts much more slowly than
semantics, and everything doesn't change all at once. Even Aramaic and
Hebrew were still different in the Second Temple period (later too, of 
course).
Check out the nif`al (o dear, it's CVC-CVC-(CV), must be from ARamaic !
But there wasn't any nif`al in Aramaic ! o me o my! that is horrible! And they
didn't even let the Aramaic haf`el replace Hebrew hif`il, despite their total,
slavish dependence on Aramaic phonology and morphology. We
need a good conspiracy theory. They must have forgotten the correct
*napa`ala and as a group re-written it. They must have reinvented a whole
language to look different from Aramaic to confuse later researchers. And
they just got lucky that some of this could be documented in shared traits
with more distantly related languages than Aramaic. But a good conspiracy
theory won't be stopped by data that checks out! No siree! )
These morphological relationships in the Semitic languages go back to before
the pre-Babylonian exile.
Not only do the Semitic languages have CVC patterns from before the
Babylonian exile, but the Masoretic text has accurately preserved them.
Imagine that, and linguists think that's linguistically reasonable. The
Masoretic text has also preserved vowel shifts that are 'late', (at last!
something maybe not from Bible days.) but by consistently preserving
them, even they become useful comparative evidence for reconstructing
pre-Masoretic layers and comparing with cognate languages.

So if you want to ignore the Semitic languages and do not trace the Masoretic
spellings through the various phases, then you will be consigned to developing
a fictive language, a language that no one ever spoke, and one that does not
predict morphological development correctly, like a good theory should.
And you might not be able to recognize ancient Hebrew writers
when they use "qatol" structures as the main verb of a coordinated clause.
CVCVCVCV is your choice.  But it is not Biblical Hebrew.


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