Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Garth Grenache <garthgrenache AT hotmail.com>]

Hi Karl :)


Karl> Therefore, for the changes that you, citing Blau, mention to have 
occurred, most of them would have been prior to Mishnaic era. 

Agreed. I reckon all but Blau's stage iv are before the first century C.E.



Garth> It is from ProtoSemitic/ProtoHebrew to the Tiberian vocalised Biblical 
Hebrew that Blau is showing development.Karl> I was trained in science 
classes to disregard any claims based on that which is not observable. 
Neither ProtoSemitic nor ProtoHebrew have been observed, but are built up 
based on models that may or may not be correct.

It is good to understand that these are models and may or may not be correct. 
 It is also good to consider the reasons proposed for these models, and 
consider what models are consistent with the facts.

ProtoSemitic is the name given to the hypothetical first Semitic language, 
and ProtoHebrew to the hypothetical first Hebrew language.  I suppose that 
there must have been a first Semitic language, and there must have been a 
first Hebrew language too.  Is there an alternative hypothesis? i.e. that 
there never was a first Semitic language?  How could it be so?


Garth>It is said that Stage iii probably reflects Hebrew from about 1000 
B.C.E. I reckon Stage iv is probably a development in the Tiberian tradition 
of pronunciation, medieval.
Karl> When reading your explanation, I didn’t read these as different stages, 
rather i and ii were before change, and iii and iv post change.

Blau shows pretonic lengthening came between stages iii and iv.
i.e. the forms produced by the move of stress to the last syllable (stage 
iv), have propretonic lengthening instead of pretonic lengthening.



Karl>The question is of when the major change occurred? My understanding is 
that is most likely during the Babylonian to Persian eras. 

Stage iii (loss of final short vowels) was apparently before the Babylonian 
era, as feminine -ah forms resulted from previous -atu forms, and this is 
reflected in pre-exile Hebrew texts.

Pretonic lengthening is suggested by Blau to have occurred as a *reaction* to 
the Aramaic tendency of reducing the pretonic short vowels, in order to 
preserve the pretonic vowels from being reduced.  It would thus seem to me to 
be a reaction to the Aramaic of the captivity or thereafter.

Finally, stage iv(shift of stress to last syllables) is said by Blau to be 
after Aramaic influence is accepted, and it occurs with Aramaic-like 
reduction of the pretonic syllable, e.g. sha:-MA-ra:(h) -> Sha:-m:-RAH.


Karl> Thanks, I found this interesting. It also seems to back up some 
thoughts I have on how Biblical Hebrew was pronounced.
You are welcome, Karl :)

Garth Grenache,
Australia.