On 3/12/07, K Randolph wrote:
> > Well, as I suppose you probably know, the advance of scholars towards
> > analysis of "waw-conversive" as in fact waw-consecutive before a
preterite was
> > grounded in advances in scholarship in the Amarna texts. It was the
Amarna
> > texts which led to a renewed analysis of the Biblical verb forms on
the basis
> > of those texts. I am not sure why you think that claims regarding
Proto-Hebrew
> > cannot be utilized because its existence is not "proven" but "assumed"
> > -- do you
> > simply deny that Amarna vocables can teach us about an earlier stage
of the
> > Hebrew language? do you deny that cognate languages such as Aramaic
or
> > Ugaritic can teach us about this earlier stage of the Hebrew language
/ Proto-
> > Hebrew? What have Comparative Semitists been doing for the last
hundred
> > years if not to demonstrate an Afroasiatic (and daughter stage -
Proto-Semitic)
> > language?
> > ...
> >
> > Yitzhak Sapir.
>
> You are straying outside of linguistics that can be studied, to
> philosophy/religion accepted on blind faith.
>
> In studying Biblical Hebrew, all we have is the text, and a few
> ostraca and inscriptions to go on. The Masoretic points are post
> Biblical additions, which no one will deny. The earliest extent copies
> of the Biblical text are the DSS. Now to the text.
>
> I have previously pointed out that the text of the early chapters of
> Exodus gives references to actions that occurred during the Hyksos
> period. Therefore, if Moses wrote Torah (except possibly the last
> chapter of Deuteronomy), and you cannot prove that he didn't other
> than by faith, a faith that many of us do not ascribe to, if Moses
> wrote of the Hyksos period that would indicate that Biblical Hebrew
> was spoken as a distinct language cognate to, though separate from and
> prior to, the language spoken and recorded in the Tell Amarna letters.
> The same goes for the extant Ugaritic writings.
>
> I have never denied that a study of cognate languages can sometimes
> help with the study of Biblical Hebrew. All I emphasize is that any
> such study must recognize that cognate languages are not the same and
> can actually lead to incorrect conclusions if not treated carefully.
>
> A true scientist does not base his work of speculation, but on what
> can be observed. Proto-Hebrew, along with proto-Semitic, are based
> totally on speculation, albeit educated speculation, because there are
> no examples of either to study. There are many besides Rolf who reject
> references to a putative proto-Hebrew as being outside the realm of
> proper scholarly studies.
Karl, if anyone has strayed "outside of linguistics that can be studied,
to
philosophy/religion accepted on blind faith", it is you, in the above
quoted message.
studied linguistics.
The date of Moses, the theory of dating Moses to the period of the
Hyksos, etc. has nothing to do with linguistics, or with the topic at
hand.
discussion. Many (most? all?) people here do not ascribe to your
faith in the Hyksos dating of Moses and so obviously "you cannot
prove [Moses didn't write the Torah and make reference to Hyksos
events] other than by faith, a faith that most of us do not ascribe to"
is false.
at hand. I have asked you previously to define in your terms how
a cognate language may be defined as separate from an earlier
stage of the language and you suggested it has to do with literary
dependence.
a tablet actually written in Safaitic,
Comparative Semitics has nothing to do with belief, and people
of all beliefs, and various degrees of religious commitment, accept
it.
dating or the denial of the authenticity of Tiberian vocalizations.
observed or tested (such as a Hyksos dating for Moses, and the
assumption that Moses spoke a language that was "consonant-
congruent" with the text of the DSS or the MT), the use of Historical/
Comparative Semitics is methodological and based on what can be
observed.
idea of Proto-Hebrew, and this is why Rolf stands out.
Yitzhak Sapir
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.