עִדַּן הַקּוֹר֫וֹנָה

[ducky]

Since חֲבֵרַי is definite (= החברים שלי), I don't see why you would write טובים instead of הטובים.

Where do you get the idea that a masculine plural noun with a first person singular possessive suffix is necessarily definitive? However, even if definitive, the ה prefix on the following adjective is optional.

A noun with a possessive suffix is definitive.
when someone wants to write: my good friends, he writes חברי הטובים.

When you say that the ה letter is optional, you are wrong. But you are also right when it comes as another role in the sentence.

if you don't put the ה on the adjective (טובים), then you actually create a full nominal sentence, which the adjective has the role of a predicate.
so: חברי טובים = My friends are good.
But חברי הטובים = my good friend,...(and that is just part of the sentence)
So Jason wrote it well.

The word יהודית might work adverbially when it appears with the verb לדבר (as in, דבר אתנו יהודית [imperative]), but תלמידי יהודית sounds like "the disciples of Judith."

The language is mentioned as a noun in 2 Kings 18:26, 28, Isaiah 36:11, 13, Nehemiah 13:24, 2 Chronicles 32:18.

Judith has the same spelling in Genesis 26:34, but the context is clear that that’s a personal name and not the name of the language.

Aramaic ארמית is used the same way 2 Kings 18:26, Isaiah 36:11, Daniel 2:4, and in Aramaic Ezra 4:7.

יהודית is an adjective, whether it describes a woman or a tongue, and the understanding is by the context.

In the Bible, we can see a יהודית also as the language, (and actually, Yiddish, means יהודית).
Today the common and known name is עברית (from עבר), and so, there is no problem to use that if it doesn't ruin the style. (and basically, I don't understand the point of this section in the forum of writing sentences in Biblical Hebrew).

The language of the Bible is also called שפת כנען in the text of the Bible,

Nope. At the time that the prophesy of Isaiah 19:18 was fulfilled, the שפת כנען was Aramaic, not Hebrew. The fulfillment was during the Persian era. The Jews who settled Judea and Samaria after the Babylonian exile spoke Aramaic as their mother tongue, Hebrew was a second language used in religion, high literature, official government records and commerce. Much like Latin in medieval Europe. Many of the common people didn’t know Hebrew.

שפת כנען is basically the tongue that was spoken in Cannan, Canaanite tongue. When we read the text, it comes to say: "Hebrew". that is the idea of this prophecy.
I don't know how you jumped to talk about the second temple era in Jerusalem when this prophecy talks about Egypt.
But anyway, people did speak Hebrew at second temple period, and it is found also in simple letters (not literary ones).
The thought of people spoke Aramaic, and that Hebrew was an artificial language was an old 19-20th century thought, which since then, it was proven otherwise.

What about the addition of a ת suffix when not a feminine noun in construct? What meaning does it add?

If I understand the case that you're talking about, it does not have a special meaning. the letter ת is the original suffix for feminine nouns. the suffix H is later. Sometimes, there are feminine words that are written in the archaic feminine form.
If I didn't understand what you are talking about, please give a few examples.

What about when a masculine noun is changed to a feminine when we don’t refer to the sex of a living creature?

There can be an option that one word is the sentence "influences" on the other, it is a matter of style.
but maybe I don't understand what you're saying.
Can you please give a few examples?

*
Instead of arguing about the right way, and it is clear that Karl is more strict on focusing on the Hebrew that is represented in the Bible only, and Jason is more liberal, you both can complete each other by writing the same Hebrew sentence, each one in his way, and so we can see two styles of Hebrew.

[Jason Hare]

Where do you get the idea that a masculine plural noun with a first person singular possessive suffix is necessarily definitive? However, even if definitive, the ה prefix on the following adjective is optional.

From grammar books that speak about definiteness specifically as well as from the experience of being a Hebrew speaker.

From Learning Biblical Hebrew by Kutz & Josberger, page 128: “Words with a pronominal suffix are considered definite, even though they never have the definite article. Pronominal suffixes indicate that the author is referring to a specific object.”

From the same book, page 132: “In Hebrew a word is definite if it: (1) Bears the definite article (הַ‏‏ □ּ), (2) is a proper noun (e.g., Samuel), (3) contains a pronominal suffix (e.g., my house), or (4) appears in a construct chain where the final noun is definite, thus imparting definiteness to the whole sequence (סוּס הַמֶּ֫לֶךְ ‘the horse of the king’).”

From Gesenius §125a: “A noun may either be definite in itself, as a proper name or pronoun..., or be made so by its context. In the latter case, the determination [i.e., definiteness] may be affected either by prefixing the article..., or by connexion of the noun (in the construct state) with a following determinate genitive, and consequently also... by its union with a pronominal suffix....”

It has nothing to do with the gender of the noun. The presence of pronominal suffixes makes it definite. That's a basic concept of Hebrew.

The language is mentioned as a noun in 2 Kings 18:26, 28, Isaiah 36:11, 13, Nehemiah 13:24, 2 Chronicles 32:18.

Yes, it was called יהודית in connection with verbs of speaking. That gives the word context. If you don't use a verb of speaking, how is one to know that you are talking about the language? דִּבַּ֫רְתִּי אִתּוֹ יְהוּדִית would obviously mean that “I spoke with him (in) the language of Judah.” However, without that connection to speech, I wouldn't expect יהודית to refer to the language. Since שפת כנען is a biblical expression, I really like it. Also, it expresses how I see the Hebrew language — as part of the linguistic milieu that existed in the Promised Land at the time, in which Hebrew was just another dialect of the language that was spoken there. If you read the Moabite of the Mesha Stele, it is the same essential language as the Hebrew of the Siloam Inscription. Using the name שפת כנען reminds us that the language belongs to more than just one tribe and can be thought of as universal. I know it's meaningless, but it has meaning to me.

If our goal is to study Biblical Hebrew, do we want to discuss modern concepts?

We do if we are interested in composition and in sharing our own thoughts.

You have just given a good argument against the common belief that all Hebrew nouns are derived from verbs. I make the same argument. However, many nouns are derived from verbs, the same as in English, just not all of them.

Half of the book of Daniel is in Aramaic, not Hebrew. The word עדן referring to time is found only in the Aramaic section, never in Hebrew.

That doesn't mean that you should not expect someone to import it from Aramaic to Hebrew. The fact that they eventually did is exactly what I'm saying. Boundaries between languages are fluid and mixture is both expected and observed.

I don't see any problem with verbs being derived from nouns and nouns being derived from verbs. Both things happen.

Yet I recognize that the vocabulary that we have in Tanakh doesn’t represent an exhaustive list of words used in Biblical times.

That's all the concession we need to use words that naturally became part of the language at later states. As long as we're conscious of what is biblical and what is not, and as long as we surround ourselves with the text of the Bible. Read the Bible daily and profusely. The goal needs to be a combination of learning for communication (which strengthens your natural tendency for the language) and learning for reading (since, ultimately, the Bible and understanding it is our objective).

Here’s the problem with this approach—languages change over time.

Since you mentioned Shakespeare, that’s a good example. I’m a native speaker of American English. One reason I developed a strong distaste for poetry is because poetry was taught using Shakespeare’s sonnets. I didn’t understand the older English. In teaching English as a second language, I don’t touch Shakespeare with a ten-foot pole. I want my students to know English in such a way that they can understand and be understood by speakers of today’s English.

DSS Hebrew (other than the Biblical copies) differs significantly from Biblical Hebrew. It had a different grammar and many words had different definitions. Medieval (Tiberian) Hebrew was a development from DSS Hebrew. So if you plan to teach Biblical Hebrew, why confuse your students with teaching that which is not Biblical Hebrew?

It's one thing to be able to read texts that say things like "And the people marched forth and camped along the river. And they attacked their enemies early in the morning before dawn." It's quite another to be able to use the language to request that someone have a seat, open his book, read along with you, etc. In order to get people comfortable with basic commands, basic expressions, etc., we must be more lax than talking about marching into war or establishing religious cults (the goal of reading much of ancient literature). Using conversational Hebrew, perhaps altered a bit for biblical style, is the only way to go from parsing to giving and receiving messages.

You have several items in this paragraph...

I think it's drawn on too long. It's less important to judge everything with a critical eye and more urgent that we be able to understand one another.

טוב רק מי למד לכתב יהוגית: לא למדתי לדבר או לכתב יהודית רק לקראה: הלמדו אחרים כן: ידעתי כי כן חפץ דואיין לכתב חידות ומענות וגם הוא לא ידע די לכתב יהודית טובה:

הידעת את אשר כתבתי

אֶדְרֹשׁ רַק שֶׁנַּעֲבִיר בִּקֹּ֫רֶת בֹּנָה וְשֶׁנִּשְׁתָּדֵּל לִהְיוֹת פָּחוֹת שְׁלִילִיִּים בְּאִמְרֵי פִ֫ינוּ׃

[ducky]

Jason,
בקרת <-- בקורת

[Jason Hare]

I have a hard time seeing Isaiah 19 as fulfilled historically.

Isaiah 19 (NIV)
19 In that day there will be an altar to the Lord in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the Lord at its border. 20 It will be a sign and witness to the Lord Almighty in the land of Egypt. When they cry out to the Lord because of their oppressors, he will send them a savior and defender, and he will rescue them. 21 So the Lord will make himself known to the Egyptians, and in that day they will acknowledge the Lord. They will worship with sacrifices and grain offerings; they will make vows to the Lord and keep them. 22 The Lord will strike Egypt with a plague; he will strike them and heal them. They will turn to the Lord, and he will respond to their pleas and heal them.

23 In that day there will be a highway from Egypt to Assyria. The Assyrians will go to Egypt and the Egyptians to Assyria. The Egyptians and Assyrians will worship together. 24 In that day Israel will be the third, along with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing on the earth. 25 The Lord Almighty will bless them, saying, “Blessed be Egypt my people, Assyria my handiwork, and Israel my inheritance.”

I don’t know of any time when Egypt, Assyria and Israel (Ephraim?) worshiped YHWH together. I’m not saying that this will necessarily see any kind of fulfillment in the future (I’m not a man of faith by any means), but I see no reason to read שפת כנען as anything but an inclusive term that refers to Hebrew and all the other sister dialects that sprung from Canaan.

[Jason Hare]

Jason,
בקרת <-- בקורת

תֻּקַּן

מַכּ֫וֹלֶת ← מַכֹּ֫לֶת

░░░░░░░░░░░░▄▄░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░█░░█░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░█░░█░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░█░░░█░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░█░░░░█░░░░░░░░
███████▄▄█░░░░░██████▄░
▓▓▓▓▓▓█░░░░░░░░░░░░░░█░
▓▓▓▓▓▓█░░░░░░░░░░░░░░█░
▓▓▓▓▓▓█░░░░░░░░░░░░░░█░
▓▓▓▓▓▓█░░░░░░░░░░░░░░█░
▓▓▓▓▓▓█░░░░░░░░░░░░░░█░
▓▓▓▓▓▓█████░░░░░░░░░█░░
██████▀░░░░▀▀██████▀░░░

[Jason Hare]

Jason,
בקרת <-- בקורת

וְתוֹדָה לְךָ עַל־בִּקָּרְתְּךָ הַבֹּנָה

[ducky]

Hi Jason,

The prophecy is about the long time future, and compare it to the prophecies of Zephaniah 3:9 and of Zachariah 2:15.

Some try to define the time of when the "horror" of Egypt came and they give a few historical events (but never mind about that).

As for the prophecy of Egypt worshipping God, there were also a few things that were said about that. for example, after the fall of Assyria, or for example, the Temple of חוניו in Egypt (that even though it was built by the thought of Holy and with a thought of fulfilling the prophecy, it was actually against the laws, and also doesn't fit so well to the prophecy itself).
There is also the Temple by the Jews who lived in Elephantine, but that is also doesn't fit the prophecy (and I guess that this temple is what Karl meant by saying that the prophecy was fulfilled in the Persian era).

But as I said at the beginning of this post, it seems that it is a generally long time future as we see in Zephaniah and Zachariah.

[Jason Hare]

Hiya.

The prophecy is about the long time future, and compare it to the prophecies of Zephaniah 3:9 and of Zachariah 2:15.

I don't really believe in prophecies and such. It would seem to me simply to be something that never happened (and probably won't). Then again, I try to keep my personal faith (או יותר נכון: חוסר האמונה שלי) out of the equation as much as possible.

There is also the Temple by the Jews who lived in Elephantine, but that is also doesn't fit the prophecy (and I guess that this temple is what Karl meant by saying that the prophecy was fulfilled in the Persian era).

Elephantine still holds so much mystery to me. I read in Tetragrammaton: Western Christians and the Hebrew Name of God by Wilkinson (2015) what material he wrote about the relevance of the Elephantine community's archaeological remains on how we approach the Tetragrammaton, and I've got an article that I'm waiting to read (“Canon and Archive: Yahwism in Elephantine and Āl-Yāḫūdu as a Challenge to the Canonical History of Judean Religion in the Persian Period” by Granerød (2019) in the Journal of Biblical Literature). I haven't found time to sit down and concentrate on the article yet, though I did read Wilkinson's book a couple of years ago. I haven't looked into Elephantine enough to really understand what was going on there. It is fascinating, though.

But as I said at the beginning of this post, it seems that it is a generally long time future as we see in Zephaniah and Zachariah.

I agree that the sense of the passage is that it is for the distant future, and I cannot think of a time when these conditions were ever met.

Regards,
Jason

[ducky]

Hi Jason,

When a Jewish guy who lives in Israel in 21ct and speaks Hebrew says that he doesn't believe in prophecies, it kinda makes me confused.
Can someone imagine, a thousand years ago, that this thing would happen (this prophecy)?
I would say that if you lived 1000 years ago you, and heard at every end of Seder (in Passover) בשנה הבאה בירושלים הבנויה - you would just say "Yea, right".

As for Elephantine, I want to stick to this matter, and notice that we're talking about the prophecy of Isaiah. The main thing that we need to notice is that in that prophecy is about an altar which would be built by the Egyptian (foreign people), while the temple in Elephantine was built by (and for) the Jews who lived in Egypt and served the Persian king.
That alone calls for rejection of the link between the Elephantine temple and Isiah's prophecy. (Not to mention that this temple building disobeyed the laws).

I started my post by referring to your comment about faith, But it was just a note, and for this subject, it doesn't matter. Because we need to try to understand that verse from the perspective of the Biblical theology. And as we saw two other prophecies which have the same idea (and there's more) we just need to understand it as it seems to be, that Isaiah talks about a special time in the future.
And you don't need to be specific about the conditions because it comes to speak about the general idea of which everyone would worship God, and the idol-worshipping would stop. as it is said a few time in the Bible, and just an example from Isaiah 45:23 (since we're already on that book), it says:
לך תכרע כל ברך תשבע כל לשון
and that is the main idea of these kinds of prophecies, never mind how they are presented.

[Jason Hare]

When a Jewish guy who lives in Israel in 21ct and speaks Hebrew says that he doesn't believe in prophecies, it kinda makes me confused.

Pretty simple, actually. It's not really a self-fulfilling prophecy, but you must admit that ever since the Temple fell and Israel was crushed by the Romans people have been intent on eventually returning to the land. The natural hatred of historical Christianity toward Jews (not saying that Christians hate Jews today) helped Jews stay isolated from the majority population, which they were happy to do in order to avoid התבוללות while in diaspora. This helped to maintain the Jewish heritage and identity down through the past two millennia. Once Hitler carried out his plan, the world felt the need to have compassion on the Jewish people for the first time — and, voila — the vision of having a nation of our own kinda made sense.

I'm glad that it worked out as it did, and I'm glad that we have a homeland that we can call our own (and I encourage all Jews to make aliyah and fulfill the dream, of course!), but I don't see a divine hand in this. I cannot justify the Holocaust from a religious perspective, no matter what anyone tells me. It's unimaginable. That coupled with a few other things in my life bring me to conclude that life sorta just happens, and we're along for the ride (like it is now with the Coronavirus issue).

Can someone imagine, a thousand years ago, that this thing would happen (this prophecy)?

When people have been trying to make it happen for 2,000+ years, yeah, I can see that once an opportunity presents itself, it will be done. I'm not up for going further on issues regarding my personal faith positions. We're here for the language, not to convince people to believe anything (or not).

As for Elephantine, I want to stick to this matter, and notice that we're talking about the prophecy of Isaiah. The main thing that we need to notice is that in that prophecy is about an altar which would be built by the Egyptian (foreign people), while the temple in Elephantine was built by (and for) the Jews who lived in Egypt and served the Persian king.

Absolutely. It was a small temple for Jews who happened to be in that city — and from what I just read, it allowed polytheistic worship. Then again, Jerusalem was also a polytheistic temple for many generations, as we read in the historical narrative (cf. 1 Kings 23:4-7). It shouldn't surprise us that Jews living one the edge of southern Egypt were worshiping various deities at the temple they had installed for YHW (how they wrote the Tetragrammaton in the writings that were left over from their civilization). It certainly wasn't Egyptians building a temple to worship YHWH.

That alone calls for rejection of the link between the Elephantine temple and Isiah's prophecy. (Not to mention that this temple building disobeyed the laws).

I don't think the Torah was the Torah at that time. There probably was no prohibition on building temples outside of Jerusalem when they built that temple, and they probably didn't have a Torah at the center of the religious observance.

I started my post by referring to your comment about faith, But it was just a note, and for this subject, it doesn't matter. Because we need to try to understand that verse from the perspective of the Biblical theology. And as we saw two other prophecies which have the same idea (and there's more) we just need to understand it as it seems to be, that Isaiah talks about a special time in the future.
And you don't need to be specific about the conditions because it comes to speak about the general idea of which everyone would worship God, and the idol-worshipping would stop. as it is said a few time in the Bible, and just an example from Isaiah 45:23 (since we're already on that book), it says:
לך תכרע כל ברך תשבע כל לשון
and that is the main idea of these kinds of prophecies, never mind how they are presented.

Indeed. I don't disagree at all.

Thanks,
Jason