On Saturday 06 March 2004 14:28, Peter Kirk wrote:
On 06/03/2004 12:26, Ken Penner wrote:
Blau probably is the main representative of the view that QH was notThank you, Ken. But note that Blau is NOT saying that Hebrew was a dead
spoken. His article in _Diggers at the Well_ concludes,
"The analysis of the various items in which Qumran Hebrew
differs from biblical Hebrew has demonstrated that no proof
exists that they reflect a spoken Hebrew dialect used by the
members of the Qumran sect. Comparison with Middle Arabic
texts shows that these deviations may as well be due to changes
that occur in literary texts written in a literary language, no
longer spoken, owing to various traditions, genres, fashions,
scribal schools, and personal inclinations. Accordingly , there is
no justification in abandoning the prevailing view, which explains
in the simplest and the most convincing way all the details, that
the main current of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls reflects
basically the latest stage of biblical (literary) language, exposed
to the influence of the spoken vernaculars, viz. Aramaic and
some sort of Middle Hebrew , which later crystallized as Mishnaic
Hebrew."
language at the time, and so he actually SUPPORTS my position. He
accepts that there was at the time and afterwards a spoken language,
"some sort of Middle Hebrew, which later crystallized as Mishnaic
Hebrew", and that the Hebrew of the DSS was influenced by this Hebrew.
I never did claim and never would claim that QH was a spoken language,
simply because rarely if ever is a written language identical to a
spoken language. I didn't even claim that the writers of the DSS were
mother tongue speakers of Hebrew. My claim was simply that QH provides
evidence for contemporary use of Hebrew as a mother tongue, because it
was influenced by it. And so I am in complete agreement with Blau.
Could you clarify the difference, in your view, between a "spoken language" and a "mother tongue"? ...
... Even supposing that a written language tends to be somewhat different than a spoken one, I would think that certain elements, especially grammatical and lexical, would generalize across both the spoken form and the writen form. ...
... I get the feeling I'm not fully understanding some of your terms here, which is probably my fault...Maybe your problem is that you think I am writing something profound in the formal written English of academic papers, whereas I am writing some rather over-simplified thoughts in a style much more like spoken English.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.