Biblical Hebrew Forum

[fred burlingame <tensorpath AT gmail.com>]

Thanks for your additional and clarifying comments.

I am trying to get a sense of things here. I recognize it's
somewhat speculative; but nevertheless i would appreciate your opinion.

In 11 a.d., the hebrew speaking vegetable seller in ye-ru-sha-la-yim; and
his customer the leader of the synagogue ... both would have enjoyed 100
percent comprehension during the hebrew conversation that transacted the
business.

Four days later however, during the reading of the scroll of isaiah in the
synagogue service, the same vegetable seller may well have experienced
difficulty understanding some of that language spoken (not the content, but
the language itself). I speak english, but i encounter difficulty
understanding the irish dialect of english spoken? ... Is that a fair
comparison?

regards,

fred burlingame

On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 8:23 PM, Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu> wrote:

> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>
>