Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Chavoux Luyt <chavoux AT gmail.com>]

Shalom

>> The terminology was developed to describe European languages and Biblical
>> Hebrew is not a European language. Those linguists who believe that the
>> terminology refers to all aspects of languages, and refuse or are unable
>> to
>> think outside the box (limits of the terminology), may not recognize how
>> Biblical Hebrew verbal usage differs from what is described in the
>> terminology. I wonder how many other aspects of the language are not
>> recognized because of the terminology?
<snip>
> 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.
I just want to ask if the Biblical Hebrew Grammar that was developed
really come from European languages?
E.g. the whole Kal (p'al), pi'el, nif'al, hitpa'el, hif'il, hof'al and
pu'al verbal forms are part of standard Hebrew
Grammars, but is not found in any European languages as far as I know.
Or are these only applicable to Mishnaic
and Modern Hebrew, and not also to Biblical Hebrew? What is probable,
is that the correct verbal form of a verb might many
times not be visible in the consonant-only Hebrew texts of Biblical
Hebrew, especially before the usage of the
early forms of "plene" spelling (using waw and yod as placeholders for 
vowels).

Regards
Chavoux