Biblical Hebrew Forum

[fred burlingame <tensorpath AT gmail.com>]

Hello Jack:

And welcome to another nice day and the opportunity to discover the error of
your way.

Permit me to suggest at the outset that repeating yourself enhances your
credibility ... not.

Perhaps time has arrived for you to visit your nearby university library to
inspect these publications.

1. " .... mishnaic hebrew embodies the popular speech of the jewish masses
in palestine during the greater part of the second commonwealth. "

See, A History of Jewish Literature, From the Close of our Bible ... Volume
6, p. 681, Meyer Waxman.

http://books.google.com/books?id=JlqjTTlHMjoC&pg=PA680&lpg=PA680&dq=moses+segal+language+of+ordinary+life&source=bl&ots=sAkoz7n9-6&sig=3kIAl5ynFWiduR0FVIsZfDuwjjk&hl=en&ei=40IbTa2HIIL_8Abjn7CzDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=moses%20segal%20language%20of%20ordinary%20life&f=false

2. " .... what was the language of ordinary life of educated native jews in
jerusalem and judaea in the period from 400 b.c.e., to 150 c.e. the evidence
presented by mishnaic hebrew and its literature leaves no doubt that the
language was mishnaic hebrew ..."

See, A  Grammar on the Language of the Mishnah, Moses Segal, at pp. 2, 13.

3. "... the exile (586 b.c.) marks the disappearance of the (hebrew)
language from everyday life, and its subsequent use for literary and
liturgical purposes only."

A History of the Hebrew Language, at p. 52., Angel Saenz Badillos

4. ".... colloquial hebrew .... during the post-exilic era ... remained the
principal vehicle of communication.

Journal of Jewish Studies, volume xlvi, Edward Ulllendorff.

5. I define a living language as one in common daily use; and a dead
language as one not in common daily use. For example, but without
limitation, i define this language as a dead language, notwitstanding its
daily liturgical use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_Mass

regards,

fred burlingame


On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 9:35 PM, Jack Kilmon <jkilmon AT historian.net> wrote:

> Fred:
>
> It is true that Aramaic replaced Hebrew as the vernacular in the 2nd Temple
> period but if you can quote anyone who claimed that Hebrew "died" and was
> "buried" I encourage you to do so or please bury this repeated red herring
> instead.
>
> Jack Kilmon
>
>

On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 9:48 PM, Jack Kilmon <jkilmon AT historian.net> wrote:

> Fred:
>
> It is true that Aramaic replaced Hebrew as the vernacular in the 2nd Temple
> period but if you can quote anyone who claimed that Hebrew "died" and was
> "buried" I encourage you to do so or please bury this repeated red herring
> instead.
>
> Jack Kilmon
>
>
>
>