Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>]

1. Yes, stands to reason.
2. Yes, stands to reason.
3. Yes, stands to reason.
4. By 11 ad Hebrew was fully developed. Those who went to Hebrew  
school and regularly studied the Torah and the sayings of the  
prophets understood it very well. The reading from Isaiah was,  
methinks, part of the ritual, akin to the reading today of the HA- 
PTAR-AH, a relevant (prescribed) portion from the prophets read at  
the conclusion of the PAR$-AH, the weekly reading from the Torah. The  
literate understand all of it, the semi-literate understand most of  
it (may not be true for a Reform shul in America).
5. I would like to think so.
6. Absolute generalizations are dangerous, but mostly yes, except  
that I would replace the foreign "tense" and "aspect" by "time  
framework".

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Feb 5, 2011, at 8:29 PM, fred burlingame wrote:

> Hello Isaac;
>
> Thanks for your educational comments.
>
> Let me see if I understand.
>
> 1. The fully regimented and structured, spoken hebrew language  
> today, likely resembles the regimented and structured, spoken  
> hebrew language of yesterday, by way of necessity.
>
> 2. The written hebrew language of yesterday (masoretic text),  
> likely does not represent the hebrew spoken language of yesterday  
> (300 b.c.), because of the written language's less structured and  
> regimented form; in particular, the suffixed and prefixed verb  
> forms, and corresponding redundant and various usages.
>
> 3. Different geographic dialects may have separately contributed to  
> the written form of the language in ancient times. This  
> circumstance may account for the redundancy in the verb forms.
>
> 4. But what then happens in 11 a.d., when the leader of the  
> assembly stands up and reads a passage from the scroll of isaiah?  
> Does the assembled congregation follow along with limited  
> comprehension, and more as an act of worship? And then, after the  
> meeting, persons desiring complete understanding, sit down and re- 
> read the text; or discuss it with others? Is that the experience  
> today, when the text is read to the assembly? A completely  
> different experience for the listeners, in terms of comprehension,  
> than conversational hebrew?
>
> 5. And if your opinion is correct, do not all of the theories  
> accounting for differences between verb forms in the masoretic  
> text .... become moot?
>
> 6. In conclusion, for the written expression of the language known  
> as masoretic text, context, rather than verb form, rules the day?  
> Suffixed verbs may frequently indicate past tense. Prefixed verbs  
> may often indicate future tense. But context always makes the final  
> decision on tense, aspect, etc.?
>
> regards,
>
> fred burlingame
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 6:01 PM, Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu> wrote:
> I think that the reason for the different verb forms in the  
> masoretic text is that Hebrew did not develop linearly and  
> sequentially, but rather grew by the confluence of contributions  
> from different sources. Remote tribes, isolated cities (before the  
> invention of the, homogenizing, mass media), and faraway regions  
> developed all a slightly different vocabulary and verbal systems,  
> and when all these Hebrew versions came to cross influence the  
> King's language they imparted to it, on the one hand, a great  
> redundancy, yet at the same time, they endowed it with great beauty  
> and flexibility.
>
> The basic idea of the Hebrew verbal system is to combine the act  
> and the actors. The "light" QATAL form is bare (light) and is  
> devoid of any personal pronouns for the actors, which are added  
> separately: BARA ELOHIYM ET HA$AMAYIM. This form is naturally  
> considered as "past", as an honest person naturally talks about  
> what he did, and not of what he "will" do. Another invention was  
> the QITEL form with the two personal pronouns I and E, for the  
> perpetrator and the receiver of the action, inserted into it. Still  
> another invention was the HI-QTIL form, with the first pp, HI, put  
> in front of the act, and the the second pp, I, inserted between  
> the  letters T and L of the root.
>
> Are these forms inherently different? not al all (I reject the  
> "forceful" characterization of of the QITEL form). You may use  
> $ABAR and you may use $IBER, and it will mean exactly the same  
> thing. A poet may use this redundancy to embellish his poetry or  
> enliven any of his highfalutin prose, the same way that any writing  
> is embellished by synonyms or near synonyms.
>
> Then came Hebrew, VA-TA-KAM HA-IVR-IT, and took advantage of this  
> redundancy to add shades of of meaning to these various  
> constructions or BINYANIM. $ALAM is distinct from $ILEM, which is  
> still different than HI-$LIM.
> YI-QTOL also contains two personal pronouns: YI and O, but by  
> agreement this form refers to future action. VA-YI-QTOL is YI-QTOL  
> with the added verb VA = BA, 'be'.
>
> Now, reading is not hearing. In reading we may stop and reread, or  
> we may stop to ponder the meaning of what is being said. Speech  
> comes in an uninterrupted stream that needs to be unambiguously  
> grasped in "real time". Also, poetry is intended for the literati,  
> but everyday speech is one size fits all. This is why, contrary to  
> the language of the bible, the spoken Hebrew of today is fully  
> structured and regimented. U NATAN (I hear often HU) and HI)  
> shortened to a mere U and I = EE as in 'feet', the speakers  
> possibly unwittingly reverting to "proto-Semitic" forms) is 'he  
> gave', I NATN-AH is 'she gave', U I-TEN is 'he will give', I TI-TEN  
> is 'she will give', ANIY NOSEA is 'I am traveling', AT NOSA-AT is  
> 'you are traveling' (yet I often hear: MA ATAH OSE MAXAR? MAXAR  
> ANIY NOSEA LE-TEL-AVIV, with NOSEA in place of E-SA).
>
> Pregnant (with n-tuplets) words are also out; no VA-YI-KAX, and no  
> HI-$LIYK-A-T-NIY. Instead: AZ U LAKAX, and I HI-$LIYK-AH OTIY.
>
> Isaac Fried, Boston University
>
> On Feb 4, 2011, at 7:56 PM, fred burlingame wrote:
>
> > I am trying to figure out the reason for the two verb forms in the  
> > masoretic text.