Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] no to aspect

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>
  • To: "James Spinti" <JSpinti AT Eisenbrauns.com>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] no to aspect
  • Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 15:10:22 -0500

Do you think somebody ever spoke "Biblical Hebrew"?

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Feb 8, 2011, at 2:56 PM, James Spinti wrote:

Precisely the reason we go around it ad infinitum. You throw out the MT
data and then don't allow any other comparative data. And, modern Hebrew
is NOT Biblical Hebrew, or would you argue that the "waw" was pronounced
"vav" in BH times?

Sincerely,
James
________________________________
James Spinti
Marketing Director, Book Sales Division
Eisenbrauns, Good books for more than 35 years
Specializing in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Studies
jspinti at eisenbrauns dot com
Web: http://www.eisenbrauns.com
Phone: 574-269-2011 ext 226
Fax: 574-269-6788

-----Original Message-----
From: Isaac Fried [mailto:if AT math.bu.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 2:45 PM
To: James Spinti
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] no to aspect

Is "Why would only one of all the Semitic languages fail to have
gemination?" an argument? Hebrew does not have "gemination", I have
never heard a Hebrew speaker "geminate" anything. And, indeed, why
should he. For what purpose should a consonant, written only once, be
doubled in the mouth, for sheer annoyance? Where do you see that the
MT "point" to "gemination"? Are we instructed to double a consonant
as soon as we see a dot placed in it? Is this the purpose of the dot,
to instruct us to stutter?
The burden of proof is upon you, and I will gladly listen to it, but,
please, no Arabic and certainly no "Akkadian", "Ugaritic" and the like.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Feb 8, 2011, at 2:20 PM, James Spinti wrote:

Isaac,

We've been around this ad infinitum. The comparative data, the MT
itself, all point to gemination. You have failed to provide any
evidence
that is convincing to the contrary. Why would only one of all the
Semitic languages fail to have gemination?

James
________________________________
James Spinti
Marketing Director, Book Sales Division
Eisenbrauns, Good books for more than 35 years
Specializing in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Studies
jspinti at eisenbrauns dot com
Web: http://www.eisenbrauns.com
Phone: 574-269-2011 ext 226
Fax: 574-269-6788

-----Original Message-----
From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Isaac Fried
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 2:16 PM
To: Rolf Furuli
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] no to aspect

The claim of "gemination" is, in my opinion, a mere phantasy.
Doubling a letter that is written only once amounts, I am afraid, to
a heedless distortion of the biblical text.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Feb 8, 2011, at 2:53 AM, Rolf Furuli wrote:

You are correct when you say that most Semitists view WAYYIQTOL as
perfective. But I would ask two questions on the basis of the
masoretic rules of pointing and vocalization: Could the gemination
of the YOD in the prefix and the position of the stress corroborate
the view that the WAY(Y)-prefix only is a conjunction that have a
conjunctive force, and not is a semantic marker making
WAYYIQTOL
different from YIQTOL?

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page