Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Ishinan:

On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 11:26 PM, Ishinan <ishinan AT comcast.net> wrote:

> [RANDALL BUTH] - Akkadian, Arabic, Geez, Ugaritic, Hebrew, and Aramaic are
> all related and their cognate morphology needs to be explained.
>
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> [KARL RANDOLPH] - You don't remember very well either. Just because a
> language is a cognate, you forget that it is still a different language.
>
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> [ISHINAN] - Nothing is going to alter one's mind if one's mind is
> stubbornly
> locked on the idea that comparing Semitic languages to establish their
> historical relatedness is futile.


This is a straw man argument. Until proven otherwise, I’ll assume that this
is a misunderstanding on your part.


>   This, despite the
> simple fact that there isn't a single page in any Biblical Hebrew
> dictionary
> without the usual copious references to cognate languages.
>

This is most useful for seldom used words in Tanakh. For example, כאר is a
verb that is used only once in a context that doesn’t clarify its meaning.
That it is used in Akkadian medical texts to refer to distorting illnesses
gives a clue that ‘to distort’ is probably what is meant. But for most
Hebrew words used ten or more times, there are usually enough contextual
clues, combined with comparing with synonyms and contrasting antonyms, that
referring to cognate language meanings is superfluous, and can give data
that is actually misleading.

>
> I think this debate has reached a dead end.  It appears that common sense
> has left the premises, and only stubborn "denials" remain.
>
>
> Ishinan Ishibashi
>
> For me, the question is not “Should we refer to cognate languages?” but
“What is the relevance of referring to cognate languages?” Ever since
Gesenius, I have seen numerous examples of using cognate language data to
ride roughshod over and even deny contextual and other clues from within
Biblical Hebrew itself, and that is wrong. But ignoring that data where
relevant, cripples our efforts. We need to keep it in balance.

Speculating on possible historical developments where there is no data is
irrelevant to a study of and understanding of Biblical Hebrew language.

Karl W. Randolph.