Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

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