Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - [b-hebrew] Piel Participles of ayin-waw-yod

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com>
  • To: Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: [b-hebrew] Piel Participles of ayin-waw-yod
  • Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 12:39:29 -0700

A couple of points on the thread:

1. Arnaud katav
>
>If we look at phonetics, we can characterize the discontinuities between
>Ancient Hebrew and Modern Hebrew:

This list over-dramatizes the differences between ancient and modern.
>
>1. Prosody: lost

it is not clear that #1 would block communication except at the very
first encounters. People get used to hearing languages pronounced
'funny' from speakers of other dialects.

>2. Vowels: length is lost

#2 would produce occasional but rare points of ambiguity. See
following point.

>3. Weak and accented vowels: thoroughly transformed

Many of our 'long' and 'short' vowels have been modified to fit
unaccented syllable shape. But they usually preserve general
points of articulation or else are non-phonemic, non-meaning
bearing.

>4. Glottalized emphatics: lost

This assumes that the Ethiopic languages are preserving the
original sound and are not areal features borrowed from Cushitic.
of course, even with 'retracted-tongue-root' "emphatics" one
still has to deal with Tet and Qof assimilating to tav and kaf.
Also, Sa(de) with samex (but see #8 below).

>5. Laryngeals and pharyngeals: lost

not it all dialects. It is enjoyable to hear a speech today with correctly
enunciated Het and `ayin. Music to my ears.

>6. Fricatives: lost

If this refers to begedkefet letters, these were not 'emic' in
antiquity. So the loss/addition is mainly esthetic.
If this refers to ghayin vs. `ayin, and xaf vs. Het, then yes,
some loss has occurred but within a level that was apparently
tolerated by ancient speakers as is evidenced by their
alphabet.

>7. Laterals fricatives: lost

This was already lost in some dialects by the time Ahiram and Shlomo
were talking to each other (10 BCE), as evidenced by the Phoenician
alphabet.

>8. Affricates: lost (except Tsade)

Tsade emically preserves what may have been a pharyngealized sibilant.

So in summation,
it appears that these features were already handled in antiquity
between speakers of different dialects and it would
appear that communication accross the centuries would thus be
expected to be reasonably trouble-free after a brief accomodation
period. Phonology would not be a major blockage. Nor morphology.

Neologisms, new culture and technology, and new idioms would be
the major blockage. Sequential verbs might trip-up an Israeli without
extensive biblical exposure and practice, and their lack would likewise
be a bit confusing to Moshe. But communication would be possible
and would get on track after a short while.
All we would need would be a time/dimension machine with a situation
like Moshe, Eliyahu and Yeshua conversing together on a mountain
somewhere (cf. Matt 17.3).

I'll have to side with Uri that communication in a pub would work.

2. Isaac katav
>Hebrew is not English. Hebrew is root based --- English not.

English doesn't have roots? 'Reduce' and 'produce' don't have roots?
'Commitment' doesn't come from a 'mit/mis' root?

But maybe this gets back to the original thread.
מכה is approximately 'striker, killer' and cannot represent a pi``el
from נ.כ.י. nun.kaf.yod,
and מאד is approximately 'very' and cannot represent a pi``el from
alef.yod.dalet.

fortunately, some things are reasonably solid, demonstrable, and
agreed.
--
Randall Buth, PhD
www.biblicalulpan.org
randallbuth AT gmail.com
Biblical Language Center
Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page