Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Arnaud Fournet" <fournet.arnaud AT wanadoo.fr>]

From: K Randolph


Arnaud:



> > On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 11:48 AM, Arnaud Fournet 
> > <fournet.arnaud AT wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> > From: "K Randolph" kwrandolph AT gmail.com

> > The terminology was developed to describe European languages and Biblical
> > Hebrew is not a European language. …

> > Karl W. Randolph.

***

> There is a kind of hybris in thinking that a pluri-millenary tradition is 
> incorrect and thoroughly inadequate and that you, alone, have the right 
> approach.
> Actually the answer may be harder to hear than the question.

> Arnaud Fournet


***
KR wrote:
A pluri-millenary tradition for which language?
First, I was commenting on the terminology developed mostly during the last 
two centuries, hardly pluri-millenary, to describe European languages and 
that that terminology does not fit ancient, Biblical Hebrew.
***

It seems to me that we can speak of a pluri-millenary tradition for any of 
the Greek, Latin or Hebrew languages.

The grammatical terminology we have today is based on Greek ideas of the 
second half of the first millenium BCE, which were reinjected into Western 
Europe through several paths:
1. Byzantine refugees in Venezia (after the Turkish conquest)
2. Jews living in the Muslim area in the middle ages (especially Spain or 
the Maghreb)
3. Arabic speakers, who developed a number of specific ideas most often in 
reaction to Greek tradition (in Iraq and Spain).
4. Not to mention the Latin-based medieval tradition, which in fact was not 
very faithful to the Greek original.

I'm not aware that any of these people ever rejected Greek grammatical ideas 
as thoroughly inadequate, even if they developed or interpreted it with 
their own perspectives.

Chomsky (A Jew!? right?) is basically a kind of Platonician theorist with 
Pythagoric symbolist tendencies and a touch of French Port-Royal thinking.
Nothing really new. A pseudo-revolution. That's more about marketing than 
contents.

How come Hebrew does not fit that or those tradition(s) and nobody noticed 
before?

A.
***



KR wrote
Secondly, while I don’t know Mishnaic Hebrew and its later development, it 
is my understanding from discussions on this list that its grammar is 
significantly different from Biblical Hebrew. So were the medieval grammars 
developed to describe Mishnaic Hebrew, or Biblical Hebrew? My understanding 
is that they were developed for the former.
***
Significantly different!?
Both are nevertheless Hebrew, right?
How many years of training does one need to tell the difference(s)?
A.
***



KR wrote
Thirdly, while I have seen only a little of Diethelm Michel’s († 1999) work, 
so I don’t know the full extent of what he taught, yet my understanding of 
how the qatal and yiqtol worked, which I came up independently of him, seems 
to be similar to how he understood them. I read that there are others who 
are continuing his teaching, mostly connected with the University of Mainz. 
Therefore, I am not alone.
***
I cannot comment on this,
but I'm interested in learning more.

Arnaud Fournet.