Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] initial aleph

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Nir cohen - Prof. Mat." <nir AT ccet.ufrn.br>
  • To: Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] initial aleph
  • Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 19:39:17 -0200

isaac,

these are my assumptions:

1.  the masoretes did not write grammar books but did act to canonize and
preserve a religious text.
     they had no interest whatsoever how the reader would spell the words,
they wanted him to
     UNDERSTAND them. after all, hebrew was already (and also, still) not in
daily use in most
     communities.

2. as a corollary, they would not introduce ANY new linguistic elements to
the text if they knew the
    old elements.

3. they might, however, have replaced old hebrew style by a "modern" one to
make it more understood.
    this is evident, for example, in some of the dead sea scrolls. but this
means that the new elements used
    were part of the current hebrew dialect, legitimate in their own rights,
and not merely scribal whims as
    you like to present them.

    in fact, often their rendering of biblical words and expression is
CLEARLY not typical of hebrew dialect of their
    time. here we can rest assured that they did faithfully pass on to us the
original text, up to possible
    scribal errors here and there.

4. as a corollary, they would have "invented" a double letter only if it was
in use already at the time, and
     not as a "writing exercice". similarly, a dagesh forte only if it had
SOME noticeable function, at their time.
     either in common speech or in the collective memory of their
communities. especially as these
     elements (e.g. dagesh forte) were common to both niqud systems: tveriani
and bavli.

5. they introduced the double letters and dagesh forte in some constructions
and not in others. for example,
    in pi´el:
    
            dagesh:   3-root:    halakh --> hilekh
            doubling: 2-root and irregular:    sav --> sovev   mal --> milel 
´af-->´ofef  $av-->$ovev
     interesting, isnt it: dagesh as parallel+complement to letter doubling.
   
     another example is the fusing of two letters under inflections:    
                              halakh-ti, ya$av-ti, but:  mati. 
                              halakh-nu, ya$av-nu, but:  natanu.
    
     here, clearly, the masoretes felt that a "t" or "n" was lost, and
denoted it by a dagesh. this was NOT meant to
     force the reader to lengthen the t (in this respect, isaac, you are
waging a war against a phantom, nobody really
     thinks it was intended to lengthen the consonant), but yes to keep him
informed that a shortcut was in evidence
     and make transparent the LOGIC of the ancient grammar.

     another example is dagesh after the article: ha-bayit. undoubtedly, the
initial he did change in some ways
     the next consonant; some are still apparent: on BGD-KPT (today, only on
BKP). others are lost forever. but
     probably still existent in masorah times, at least in the collective
memory.again, nobody says dagesh is there
     to double the B, but it certainly REPRESENTS some tangible consonantal
effect in ancient time, perhaps a lengthening
     which is, nowadays, obsolete.

     i guess there are other examples.mapiq etc etc.

6.  based on this selective grammatical consistency of the masorah i assume
that the naqdanim/dagshanim did NOT
     just introduce at random elements which were NOT there at their time,
     nor were they inventors of a new grammar, UNLESS THEY LOST THE ORIGINAL
SENSE OF THINGS. they did, however,
     introduce new signs in order to capture, to the best of their ability,
the original language.

7.  when, on top of all this, one finds dagesh, letter doubling and double
letter shortening in other semitic languages,
     WHICH ARE USED FOR THE VERY SAME FUNCTIONS,  then one must reach the
conclusion that maybe the masoretes
     were not just cheap bluffers but maybe knew something which you, isaac,
and i , nir, do not know anymore. some information on
     BH which is lost forever.  after all, 1-2 millenia separate between us
and them.

     parallels in other languages include: binyanim parallel to hebrew pi´el
which use dagesh or letter doubling, letter fusion on declension, and
     dagesh forte following the article (as in arabic) etc etc.  so, whereas
DIBER yes is written with one B in BH, it may be written
     with two B in close dialects. and then i do not see how you can DENY
VEHEMENTLY any possibility of a linguistic
    process which might have created a B dgusha out of two Bs, at the dawn of
BH.

    clearly, your criticism about the dagesh in MODERN hebrew is in its
place: it can be removed. but modern hebrew is
    not on the agenda of this forum; on the contrary, we are debating an
effort to reconstruct BH as spoken in the 1st millenium BC.
    clearly their language reflected a logic much different than yours,
isaac, and so your ABSTRACT CONSTRUCTS ABOUT "TRUE" HEBREW
    based on pure logic and word association, and ignoring any comparative or
empiric evidence (especially when it disagrees
    with your theory) ,  are pretty shaky, to say the least.  by ignoring the
masorah from A to Z you are throwing the baby
    (=BH!) along with the milk.

    nir cohen

PS (concerning el al: you are correct, but the lofty (AL has a (AYIN
SHORSHIT, and nobody said it means the same thing as
aleph )EL. maybe they did, at the dawn of time, but then maybe each went its
own way: one upstairs, another musclewise.)

On Wed, 11 May 2011 19:54:38 -0400, Isaac Fried wrote
> 1. First and foremost don't give up. If the Hebrew language is dear to you,
> then keep up extolling her virtues.
> 2. Instead of LUL think about the name of the national airline of Israel:
> EL-AL, up-up.
> 3. Here I miss your point. No one questions the fact that some Hebrew roots
> have a double letter ever from the beginning of time.
> 4. There is no denying that the word DIBER is written (written!) with only
> one B. The thing is that in punctuated, MNUQADIYM, books we see a tiny dot
> placed inside it. As soon as we see this dot we intuitively read the letter
> as the English B and not as the English V, in other words, we say DVARIYM,
> yet DIBER. I think there is agreement on the fact that this difference in
> articulating the B is only a side effect. So, what is the primary reason
> for the placement of this dot inside the letter? You say (or appear to be
> saying) that its purpose is to instruct the reader to double the consonant
> and read (read!) the word as DIB-BER. I say baloney. 
> In any event, since the word DIBER is written (written!) with only one
> Hebrew B it should, methinks, be written also with only one English B. If
> you want to double this B in speech, then, by all means, go and try it out.
>   
>
>
> Isaac Fried, Boston University






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page