Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Randall:

On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 3:51 AM, Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com> wrote:

>  And in past contexts I, too, think that yiqtol
> refers to aspect, just that yiqtol does not refer to aspect in future
> contexts.
> (If wanting to question or comment on this please open a different thread.)
>

In reading Tanakh over and over again, and trying to fit Hebrew verbs into
time based systems (tense and aspect) but finding those time based systems
don’t work (like fitting square pegs into round holes), I conclude that
neither tense nor aspect figure into Hebrew verb inflections.

With only limited internet access, I can carry on only one heavy thread at a
time. Therefore I won’t open a new thread at this time.

>
> …
> >> e.g., by etymology someone might think that a qedesha might be
> >> any holy thing [it is a 'cult prostitute']. I would claim that the root
> >> does not predict the specific meaning that the word ended up with,
> ...
> > This is an example of etymology, not inflection.
>
> Good. But why do you say that?
>

Because a noun is not a verbal inflection.


> Older dictionaries used to group verbs and nouns together
> under a root.


Not only that, but also adjectives, adverbs, etc. as well as making up roots
for their nouns and so forth, and I have criticized them on this list for
that.


> …
> >> >> (cf. Gn 43.16,
> >> And why didn't you do a pure application of your hif`il theory:
> >> 'to CAUSE the food to ESTABLISH . . .'?
> >
> > Is that a hiphil, or a hophal? Doesn’t the lack of the medial yod mean
> > anything?
>
> The lack of yod is the expected form of a Hif`il imperative without
> a suffix.


But what about the many times that the medial yod is missing in narrative?


>  >> …
> >> As mentioned, your starting point was off,
> >> since the root would not be 'establish' but more like
> >> 'be stable, positioned unwavering, be firm'.
> >
> > Where do you get that definition? That’s not the definition I find when
> > making a descriptive definition based on looking up all its uses in
> Tanakh,
> > using a concordance.
>

You didn’t answer my question.

>
> >>>> But how do you know and show that this "inflectional view" is not
> >>>> the influence of 'first year pedagogy'
>

I thought I answered this question in more than one way, but yet again,
after finding that I could not trust the dictionaries I bought (BDB,
Gesenius, even Davidson’s analytical as for its meanings: they often gave
conflicting definitions), I then took a concordance and as I had questions,
I checked each use of words to see which was correct, and often none were.

Another thing, I look at words for the actions they refer to, not for the
translations according to semantic fields. Often very different words will
be used in translation. That is also consistent with my strict Biblical
theology. It is also how I treat words in every other language that I have
learned, because I don’t think Hebrew is different than any other language
in its action.

>
> >>   לא יכלת לכתב על זה ?
> > Don’t you know how to write a question in Biblical Hebrew?
>
> איך כותבים שאלות ביהודית/עברית?
> Apparently you don't think I know, so teach me. The English
> question didn't help.
>

The evidence is above.

Except when sentences start with words that are specific to questions, such
as how איך and where איה , questions start with a prefixed (prefixed to the
sentence or phrase that is a question) ה heh. So the sentence should have
started with הלא as in Genesis 13:9, 19:20, 20:5, 27:36, 29:25, and in over
100 other examples of just this word, not counting that prefix on other
words.

Then in your follow-up question, there are other errors: יהודית does not
take a prefix, as in Isaiah 36:11, the same way ארמית in the same verse;
כותבים is usually יכתב איש in Hebrew, making that question איך תכתבו שאלות
יהודית , e.g. Ruth 3:18.


> My question mark was to guarantee that you read it as a
> question. The same would have been true if I had started ... הלא,
> where you might have misinterpreted me to be using exclamation.
>

I have been known not to catch everything, so can you give me Biblical
examples of exclamations starting with הלא ?


>  >>  אם תחפץ אתן לך מלים כמו שֵם ופֹעַל. אם לא, אל תדבר על 'שם' או 'פעל'.
> >
> > This makes no sense in Biblical Hebrew.
>
> You are using words in ways never found in Biblical Hebrew. If you want to
use them that way, unless you can point to verses where they are used in
this way, recognize that you are not speaking Biblical Hebrew.

>
> >> דבר על דברים מסביבותיהן.
> >
> > Sorry, feels wrong. Check that last word.
>

You missed the point. מסביבותיהן would mean “out from that which is around
them”, in other words, ‘out of context’ when what you meant to say ‘in their
context’. In their context would probably be במסביהן e.g. Song of Songs
1:12.

>
> >> כי פה יוכלו כל מורינו לבאר את הכתובים בשפת כנען. ואנחנו מוסיפים מלים
> >> “בשפת כנען”
> > you mean Aramaic, the language spoken in Canaan when that
> > prophesy was fulfilled? After all, there was a word at that time for
> > Hebrew if Hebrew were meant.
>
> Your comment is too shallow and doesn't help.
> After all, there was a word in Isaiah's time if Aramaic was meant,
> aramit.
> As for Hebrew, they were then using yehudit for the restricted
> Southern-Kigdom-Hebrew. sefat Kena`an is better than yedudit.
>

You have no evidence other than your presuppositions that שפת כנען = Hebrew.
If I remember correctly, when Isaiah wrote that prophecy, there was only one
Hebrew speaking area in the Levant, and that was Judea—Samaria having been
deported and those who replaced Samaria did not speak Hebrew. When that
prophecy was fulfilled, those Jews who moved back to Judea also spoke
Aramaic. But this is a side issue.


>
> And why didn't I say יהודית? Because I recogniz that יהודית
> is specific to Southern-Kingdom Hebrew


Where is your evidence that the Northern Kingdom spoke a different Hebrew
before they were deported?


> > We have no written history pre-Tanakh, and post Tanakh is irrelevant to
> > Biblical Hebrew, because it changed.
>
> First of all, I was speaking of the tana"x. But secondly, the history of
> the
> language is still part of the picture, unless you believe and can show
> that it changed 100%.


Here you are making the all or nothing error. A change of only about 5% and
you get about the difference between Norwegian and Swedish. A change of an
inflection that prior to the change did not take a time related meaning, and
after the change refers to tense, may look very similar on paper, but have a
major change in meaning.

For me, the underlying change in meaning trumps any similarity in
appearance, consistent with my theology.

…
> >>> So similarly for NGD, the limited literature that is Tanakh cannot rule
> >>> out other uses of either a qal, niphal or other binyan, nor even other
> >>> uses of the hiphil.
> >>
> >> So you choose zero out of 369 in order to justify your 'first year
> >> grammar'?
>


> > Is the verb always a hiphil? What about the many times it is written
> without
> > a medial yod? Sure, many of those times they are hophals, the passive
> form
> > of hiphil (e.g. Genesis 48:2, Judges 4:12, 9:7, 42, 1 Samuel 3:13, 17:31,
> > 18:20), with the same basic meaning, but that puts to lie the claim that
> > they are all hiphils.
>
> Please try to understand what you are arguing against. You still don't
> seem to have understood 'my' position that from language use a hif`il
> and a hof`al are the same word. Those truly are inflexional.
>

So some of the binyanim are inflections, and some etymologies? Or are you
saying that groups or pairs of inflections are etymologies? I don’t see the
logic of your position. Previously, from the way you argued, I had the
impression that you thought that all binyanim are etymologies.


> …
> > And I wonder how many of the other times that the
> > medial yod is missing that they really are piels or puals?
>
> The methodology is flawed. Occam's razor


I don’t believe in Occam. I have seen too many examples in many areas that
show the fallacy of that thought. But that is especially true when dealing
with human actions: their use of language is just one area of human actions.
That’s why you need to be descriptive, not predictive, when dealing with
language. And just because people use language in ways that you do not
expect, does not mean that that is an etymology.



> says that you
> do not multiply entities unless necessary. If unambiguous
> cases are 100% hif`il/hof`al,


This is already a change from your earlier position.

I contest that they are all hiphils and hophals.


> and there is nothing contrary
> that forces another 'word', meaning, or binyan, then there is no
> reason to doubt the tradition that has only recorded hif`il/hof`al
> in the first place.
>

It is you who claims that different binyan are different meanings. I
disagree with that.

>
> >> Why not say le-haggid means 'to communicate',
> >> and be done with it?
> >
> > This is translation, not with a goal of understanding Biblical Hebrew.
>
> This is your beloved DESCRIPTION, in English. You want it longer?
> higgid means 'to transfer information from one person to another.'
>

That is still translation.


> …
> > That is, if you believe it is etymology, and not inflection. If it is
> > inflection, then it is not the etymological error. Pretty much by
> > definition.
>
> 'etymology' is not something that one believes in, it is a description
> of the history and development of a word.


That is, if the word has a history of development. But if we are dealing
with inflections, then there is no history, as inflections occur at the same
time.


> If a word is shown
> to refer to communication, and someone insists on its etymological
> meaning in a speech context, then that person can be said to be
> commiting the etymological fallacy.
> When a word refers to "communication" uniquely, 369 times
> out of 369, then we say that the word/phrase has lexicalized.
>

Sorry, you haven’t shown that.

Even if you can prove that every use is within a semantic field of
communication, that does not prove that the word itself refers to the action
of communication—it could refer to a supporting action that helps with the
communication. I don’t think you have proven that every use is within
communication.

An example in English is, “He opened his mouth and said…” where “opened his
mouth” is not communication, rather a supporting action within the semantic
field. And at least one example I gave appears not to be in a communication
semantic field.


> At least that's what we do in any other language.
> And I prefer to treat BH like any other language in order to best
> preserve and recognize its distinctive identity.
>
> braxot
>
> --
> Randall Buth, PhD
> www.biblicalulpan.org
> randallbuth AT gmail.com
> Biblical Language Center
> Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life
>

Karl W. Randolph.