Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] cognate alphabet

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: fred putnam <fred.putnam AT gmail.com>
  • To: fred burlingame <tensorpath AT gmail.com>
  • Cc: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] cognate alphabet
  • Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 23:22:53 -0500

Fred,

I have only a few moments, and so reply briefly. I encourage you to do some
reading in textual criticism and history of the alphabet, which should
answer some of your questions.

1. There is no way to respond succinctly.

2. Cognate Semitic languages (e.g., Ugaritic and Hurrian) and Greek (LXX)
are used from time to time to interpret biblical passages, but they are used
in different ways. Comparative Semitics reveals how a lexical root
functioned in different languages, which gives us something of the
linguistic context of BH that becomes especially important when dealing
with, e.g., *hapax legomena*.

3. The primary resource used by BDB is the biblical text, followed by the
Semitic languages known in their day (Ugaritic and Hurrian were not yet
discovered when BDB was published). Glosses based on LXX are usually listed,
not to establish meaning or define words, but to suggest glosses where there
is little or no cognate information, or where there is a significant
difference between LXX and MT.

4. This statement seems to over-estimate the differences between MT and LXX;
since it does not ask a question, I'm not sure what else to say. You might
find it profitable to vertically align a number of complete passages (e.g.,
a few short books, such as Jonah, Ecclesiastes, Ruth, and Habakkuk, as well
as longer portions of larger books) in order to see just how close/distant
they are. Then differences (which tend to be differences from an expected
norm) can be evaluated in light of that translator's tendencies.

5. BDB lists Hebrew from the Second Temple period as "NH" (= New (Late)
Hebrew); it also refers to the Mishna (abbreviated "Mish(n).") and Talmud
(abbr. "Talm."). Linguistic descent, however, has no bearing on a word's
antecedents. Both "dynamo" and "dynamite" were created from the Greek word
"dynamis", which refers to "power" or "strength", but no ancient Greek was
thinking of either dynamite or a dynamo when saying or writing "dynamis".
The English word "gossip" was "god-sib", meaning a friend who was close
enough to be a relative ("sibling"), normally the person who might be asked
to be a child's godparent at their christening. It was a great compliment to
be called a "gossip", because it meant that you were such close friends that
you unburdened your hearts to one another. (Note how the word "gossip" is
used in many of Shakespeare's plays. Note also that it does not occur in the
King James (Authorised) Version.) Eventually, however, the word referred not
only to a bosom friend, but to someone who shared with others what they had
received in confidence, and to "gossip" became a sin (and appears in modern
translations where KJV reads "tale-bearer"). James Barr's work, *The
Semantics of Biblical Language*, is helpful on this point, as is Ferdinand
de Saussure, *Course in General Linguistics*.

6.

7. On cognates, see any discussion of the Semitic languages, perhaps
beginning with Bergstrasser's *Introduction & Text Specimens* (not the exact
title). On Greek, Hebrew and Greek are *not* cousins, any more than Chinese
and English are "cousins". The two languages are not related, as you will
see if you read any discussion of linguistic families (so-called). On the
"omission of its children", see #5 (above). Its descendants are rarely
material witnesses to their ancestor.

I strongly recommend that you do some reading in these areas and then come
back with questions; it will make the discussion far more profitable for us
both (all):


- A college-level introduction to linguistics (e.g., George Yule, among
many others)
- General linguistics (e.g., John Lyons)
- Historical linguistics (e.g., Theodora Bynon)
- Comparative Semitics (e.g., articles in *Encyclopedia Judaica*,
*Encyclopedia
Britannica*, Bergstrasser (above))
- Lexical Semantics (e.g., Barr (above), Moises Silva, *Biblical Words
and Their Meanings*)

I hope that this is helpful.

Peace.

Fred


On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 4:22 PM, fred burlingame <tensorpath AT gmail.com>wrote:

> Hello Fred:
>
> Thanks for your helpful comments and taking the time to respond. I reply as
> follows.
>
> 1. I did not intend "part & parcel" to communicate uniqueness; but rather
> to convey a sense of essence. Written language, in other words, exists not,
> absent letters. Hence, a distinction between cognate languages and cognate
> alphabets, elevates form over substance, in terms of difference.
>
> 2. I appreciate your contrast between ancient greek; and ugarit or hurrian,
> in application of the latter (but not the former) to interpret biblical
> hebrew. That is the point of my post. Why the difference?
>
> 3. Brown, Driver, Briggs Lexicon surely appears to give ancient greek equal
> standing with arabic, ethiopian, etc., in the determination of
> individual hebrew word meanings.
>
> 4. But for some strange reason, when the matter proceeds from individual
> words to entire texts, the masoretic text sails south; and the septuagint
> flies west in terms of overall content and meaning (accorded the same story
> or text).
>
> 5. And the inconsistency becomes all the more pronounced when the children
> of biblical hebrew (aka mishnaic, medieval, modern) never become consulted
> for interpretation of the parent. If "language dna" flows upward and outward
> (hurrian and ugarit), why not downward? So is the case with organic dna.
>
> 6. It seems like arbitrariness rules the day.
>
> 7. If biblical hebrew presents a unique language, why then the chronic
> discussion of certain other languages here. And if biblical hebrew
> represents not a unique language, why then the omission of its children from
> discussion, not to mention its ancient cousin greek?
>
> regards,
>
> fred burlingame
>
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 1:10 PM, fred putnam <fred.putnam AT gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> The only application of grammatology (the study of lettering, or alphabets
>> (crudely put)) to Classical Hebrew is to ask if certain text-critical
>> variants may have arisen due to the similarity of the archaic letters
>> (e.g.,
>> archaic *he* and *waw*), although (as many have noted) textual criticism
>> is not an "alphabet game".
>>
>> Since the physical representation of a (any) language is always secondary
>> in the language's history. That is, no known language began as writing
>> which
>> then gave rise to a system of speech; "writing", whatever its
>> form--syllabic, logographic, or acrophonic (i.e., one that we would
>> recognize as an "alphabet")--is always an attempt to reproduce speech.
>>
>> Letters are not part and parcel of language, since the same letters (such
>> as these with which I type this) can be used for many languages; perhaps
>> this means that we can think of writing systems as "meta-lingual", even if
>> a
>> particular system is or was used in one culture for one language.
>>
>> I'm not sure what the second paragraph is asking. Sorry. (I've been
>> reading a lot of student papers.)
>>
>> Nor am I sure what the word "instruct" means in the third paragraph
>> (incidentally, "Hurrian" and "Ugaritic" are *languages* which were
>> written in cuneiform, which is a *writing system*). We do occasionally
>> use the Greek alphabet to "understand" the Hebrew text, but this is because
>> the Septuagint (LXX) transliterates proper names and a few other words,
>> which we can use as a clue to the pronunciation of pre-Masoretic Hebrew.
>> This is not, however, the same as using Greek to "understand" the Hebrew
>> text in the sense of "interpret".
>>
>> We also discuss the relationships between, and apparent development of,
>> different systems of writing (this is also part of grammatology), which can
>> help us see that, e.g., sounds represented by two different signs or sets
>> of
>> signs in one language are represented by only one sign in another. It tends
>> to be more helpful when we can be fairly certain of the chronological
>> relationships between languages, which is why there is a great deal of
>> study
>> of, e.g., the grammatology of English, as when we ask how many "sounds" are
>> represented by the "sign" "ou"?.
>>
>> And some of this discussion is related to the study of Canaanite
>> inscriptions ("Canaanite" is a term given to the group of related languages
>> used in and around Canaan (Phoenician, Hebrew, Moabite, &c.).), but this
>> takes afield of the purpose of this list (if I have not already strayed too
>> far), and I need to get back to reading papers. I hope that this is at
>> least
>> interesting.
>>
>> Best wishes.
>>
>> Fred
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 1:37 PM, fred burlingame
>> <tensorpath AT gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Are not letters part and parcel of language?
>>>
>>> Is not alphabet (consonants and vowels) of languages cognate routinely
>>> discussed here, as a highway for understanding hebrew corresponding
>>> letters
>>> (consonants and vowels)?
>>>
>>> Why do hurrian or ugarit or cuneiform letters instruct the hebrew
>>> alefbet, but greek letters do not? Or perhaps none is efficacious for
>>> guiding understanding of the other?
>>>
>>> regards,
>>>
>>> fred burlingame
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 12:12 PM, fred putnam
>>> <fred.putnam AT gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> I believe that Fred's (Burlingame) link is to the history of the
>>>> alphabet.
>>>>
>>>> Peace.
>>>>
>>>> Fred
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Kirk Lowery <kirk AT grovescenter.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > On 11/24/10 12:11 PM, Christopher Kimball wrote:
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Is Greek usually considered a cognate language of Hebrew?
>>>> >
>>>> > No. Greek is Indo-European. Hebrew is a member of the Semitic family.
>>>> > Naturally,
>>>> > there is some influence of one on the other because of people speaking
>>>> both
>>>> > languages and the LXX, etc.
>>>> >
>>>> > Blessings,
>>>> >
>>>> > Kirk
>>>> > --
>>>> > Kirk E. Lowery, PhD
>>>> > President & Senior Research Fellow
>>>> > The J. Alan Groves Center for Advanced Biblical Research
>>>> > --
>>>> > $DO || ! $DO ; try
>>>> > try: command not found
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > b-hebrew mailing list
>>>> > b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
>>>> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> --)---------------
>>>> "We are not yet what we already are" (J. Pieper).
>>>>
>>>> Frederic Clarke Putnam, Ph.D. | Professor of Biblical Studies
>>>> Philadelphia Biblical University | 200 Manor Avenue | Langhorne, PA
>>>> 19047-2990
>>>> http://pbu.edu | 1215-702-4502 | Fax: 1-215-702-4533 |
>>>> www.fredputnam.org
>>>>
>>>>  Before printing this email, think green!
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> b-hebrew mailing list
>>>> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
>>>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> --)---------------
>> "We are not yet what we already are" (J. Pieper).
>>
>> Frederic Clarke Putnam, Ph.D. | Professor of Biblical Studies
>> Philadelphia Biblical University | 200 Manor Avenue | Langhorne, PA
>> 19047-2990
>> http://pbu.edu | 1215-702-4502 | Fax: 1-215-702-4533 | www.fredputnam.org
>>
>>  Before printing this email, think green!
>>
>
>


--
--)---------------
"We are not yet what we already are" (J. Pieper).

Frederic Clarke Putnam, Ph.D. | Professor of Biblical Studies
Philadelphia Biblical University | 200 Manor Avenue | Langhorne, PA
19047-2990
http://pbu.edu | 1215-702-4502 | Fax: 1-215-702-4533 | www.fredputnam.org

 Before printing this email, think green!




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page