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: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 11:59:37 -0500

Dear Fred,

With regard to your #3, you are right--I was replying (as I thought)
point-by-point to your original nos., but that has now become a bit murky.

Perhaps with regard to your most recent #5-6, there comes a point beyond
which we ought not press the familial analogy; it is useful to a point, but
only to that point, since languages are not human beings, nor are their
relationships as lineal as the tidy diagrams (and the etymological
information in the lexica) tend to make them appear.

Thanks for your encouragement. I've enjoyed this thread.

In peace.

Fred

On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 11:08 AM, fred burlingame <tensorpath AT gmail.com>wrote:

> Hello Fred:
>
> Thanks for taking the time to post detailed and responsive comments to my
> inquiries. Let me see if I understand.
>
> 1. Your explanation of why we do not rely on the descendant language to
> inform the ancestor, makes perfect sense. Succeeding generations often use
> the same words in a different manner. So, word evolution deprives the child
> language of explanatory benefit to the parent.
>
> 2. Your explanation of why we do rely on sibling languages to instruct
> understanding of one another, likewise makes sense. A word occurring but
> once in the masoretic text may well receive illumination as to meaning from
> a similar root word in the sister language (arabic, ugarit, etc.).
>
> 3. Please forgive what follows. It probably stems from my ignorance. But my
> reaction to "1" and "2" above: "why the difference between "1" and "2" ?"
>
> 4. Can we not interchange your explanations in "1" an "2." In other words,
> the descendant language does inform the ancestor because of common lexical
> roots. And the sibling language fails to instruct understanding of the
> sister language, because of the entirely different manner in which sibling
> languages evolve usage and meaning of similar (same) words. Or .... a tree
> in masoretic text = a tree in modern hebrew; but a tree in masoretic text =
> a ram in ancient arabic?
>
> 5. Or to put it another way, your nice explanations confirm that linguists
> see a fundamental difference between:
>
> a. parent/child languages; and
>
> b. sibling languages.
>
> 6. In my limited understanding of things, I see no such global or
> consistent difference. Some children like their parents. And some do not.
> Some siblings like each other. And some do not. But no consistent difference
> defines the character of the two groups. Likewise, with languages, it occurs
> to me that similarities and differences exist in both groups
> (ancestor/descendant & siblings). Hence, sibling languages and
> ancestor/descendant languages can and do both benefit and inhibit
> understanding of their relatives, respectively.
>
> regards,
>
> fred burlingame
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 10:22 PM, fred putnam <fred.putnam AT gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> 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!
>>
>
>


--
--)---------------
"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