Alphabet question please.

[Kenneth Greifer]

Karl,
Smorgasbord is a Swedish word from what I read looking it up. Why should it be in an English spelling bee?

[Jason Hare]

A few years ago, I was watching the national spelling bee (in America), and the first few words were, in my opinion, foreign words. Anyway, when I was a kid, I lost a spelling bee on the word "smorgasbord." I still think that should not have been in an English-language spelling bee. I mention this because you are discussing if abba is Hebrew. That is a really good question. I had no idea it was from Aramaic. I thought it was "daddy" in Biblical Hebrew and av was the more formal "father."

It’s a folk tale that ʾabbāʾ means “daddy.” No one in Israel would say that. The Aramaic word for “father” is אָב, just as it is in Hebrew. The definite article (less of a “definite” article in Aramaic, admittedly) is ha- with dagesh in Hebrew, and it is an alef added after the word in Aramaic.

Hebrew: מֶ֫לֶךְ “king” and הַמֶּ֫לֶךְ “the king”
Aramaic: מֶ֫לֶךְ “king” and מַלְכָּא “the king”

So, Hebrew הָאָב hāʾāḇ “the father” is equivalent to Aramaic אַבָּא “the father.” Yes, children in Israel say abba when talking to their “daddy,” but adults call their fathers abba, too.

[Jason Hare]

I think you misunderstand me. Is not this forum for the study of Biblical Hebrew? As such, does that not rule out studying even Second Temple Hebrew, which had somewhat different vocabulary and a different grammar than did Biblical Hebrew? Yes, languages change, and post-Biblical Hebrew is no different in that regard. But if we limit ourselves to Biblical Hebrew, doesn’t that constrain ourselves to discussing only Biblical Hebrew?

As for what Jews on the street spoke, there’s already indication in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, even Daniel, that the day-to-day language was Aramaic.

Note to Kenneth Greifer: I don’t understand why you didn’t think smörgåsbord was a good English word.

Karl W. Randolph.

I think that the Dead Sea Scrolls is a great witness to the language. I don’t see how Genesis is any more biblical Hebrew than is Nehemiah. Both are biblical Hebrew. Even the language of the earlier books isn’t as perfect as some would have us think.

[Kenneth Greifer]

Jason,
Do people in Israel think abba means "father" or "the father" or "daddy"?
Technically, it could mean "the father" in Aramaic, but what does it mean to the people who use the word?

[Kenneth Greifer]

Jason,
Do people in Israel think abba means "father" or "the father" or "daddy"?
Technically, it could mean "the father" in Aramaic, but what does it mean to the people who use the word? I mean do they see it as a more affectionate word than "father" av?

I wanted to edit the posting, but instead I quoted it.

[kwrandolph]

Karl,
Smorgasbord is a Swedish word from what I read looking it up. Why should it be in an English spelling bee?

Yes, it’s a Swedish word, which I spelled in Swedish for the fun of it. It means “butter goose table”.

Like many other words, it’s a loan word into English. Other examples of loan words include kindergarten, rendezvous, acrophobia, and many, many more. They are in English spelling bees because they are immigrants who have gotten citizenship.

Karl W. Randolph.

[learning Hebrew]

OMG, so very sorry guys, I never received a single email Notification from this board so wasn't;t aware of all of these posts until I came back to check the thread. Sorry about the "name" issue, have adjusted it in the signature.

I appreciate all of the info, thanks guys.

So, I guess my next question would be how will I know "when" I should be using 2 bet letters back to back when writing any words or is it that if there should be any word which requires "bb" you can use only one b please?

[kwrandolph]

I think that the Dead Sea Scrolls is a great witness to the language.

Yes it is.

I don’t see how Genesis is any more biblical Hebrew than is Nehemiah. Both are biblical Hebrew.

Agreed.

Even the language of the earlier books isn’t as perfect as some would have us think.

I think a lot of “not as perfect” is connected with modern people not knowing Biblical Hebrew. They may think they know it, they may even have PhDs in Hebrew studies and may even teach it in universities, but the truth is that they don’t really know Biblical Hebrew. They cut their teeth on Weingreen and imbibed deeply of Gesenius and BDB, not realizing that what they studied is medieval Hebrew, not Biblical Hebrew. Then when they look at Tanakh—it was written in Biblical, not medieval Hebrew—they don’t understand it perfectly so they think the text is corrupted.

For example, I recently read a paper by someone named David Clines who supposedly “found” new vocabulary in Tanakh, but when I read his examples, I found that most of them ignore context and/or don’t make sense. Another of his papers has “translations” that may make sense to him, but depend on his idiosyncratic treatment of vocabulary.

I don’t think anyone understands Tanakh perfectly. But does that justify willy-nilly proposing new vocabulary? Or claim that the text is corrupted because it doesn’t follow the patterns taught in class? Or do deeper study into why one may not understand the text as written?

Karl W. Randolph.

[Jason Hare]

OMG, so very sorry guys, I never received a single email Notification from this board so wasn't;t aware of all of these posts until I came back to check the thread. Sorry about the "name" issue, have adjusted it in the signature.

No problem at all. Thanks for adding the signature. The forum is pretty slow, so you don’t miss too much by just checking in every couple of days. Welcome to B-Hebrew!

So, I guess my next question would be how will I know "when" I should be using 2 bet letters back to back when writing any words or is it that if there should be any word which requires "bb" you can use only one b please?

It would be rare indeed to find בב written side-by-side without an intervening vowel. You will have סוֹבֵב sôḇēḇ and סוֹבְבִים sôḇəḇîm, for example. The sheva under the first bet is vocal, though. I cannot think of a word in which you have a soft bet followed by silent sheva and then a hard bet (which is what you would have if אַבָּא had the two bets separated out).

It isn’t a great idea to think of how to write English sounds in Hebrew letters. It’s better to deal with Hebrew as it exists, which means learning Hebrew words and the accidence of Hebrew’s morphology. What are you using to learn Hebrew?

[Jason Hare]

I think a lot of “not as perfect” is connected with modern people not knowing Biblical Hebrew. They may think they know it, they may even have PhDs in Hebrew studies and may even teach it in universities, but the truth is that they don’t really know Biblical Hebrew.

I hope you can see that the same could be said of you and your knowledge of Hebrew. I haven’t seen anything to indicate that you know Hebrew through your method better than anyone else who used Weingreen, Gesenius, Seow, Lambdin, Van Pelt, or whatever introductory grammar in their learning. In fact, I can only see deficiencies in your approach to the learning of Hebrew language, and you have certainly not submitted any systematic approach to learning Hebrew for the critique of professionals. I get the feeling that you think you’re the only one suitably qualified to read the Hebrew Bible.

They cut their teeth on Weingreen and imbibed deeply of Gesenius and BDB, not realizing that what they studied is medieval Hebrew, not Biblical Hebrew. Then when they look at Tanakh—it was written in Biblical, not medieval Hebrew—they don’t understand it perfectly so they think the text is corrupted.

You keep saying that Weingreen and Gesenius represent medieval Hebrew. I don’t think anyone would agree with you, and I vehemently disagree with you.

For example, I recently read a paper by someone named David Clines who supposedly “found” new vocabulary in Tanakh, but when I read his examples, I found that most of them ignore context and/or don’t make sense. Another of his papers has “translations” that may make sense to him, but depend on his idiosyncratic treatment of vocabulary.

I assume that this “someone” (I love how you are so dismissive of Hebrew language academics) is the David Clines who edited The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (Sheffield Academic, 1993). I’m not making an argument from authority, but I don’t think his arguments should be summarily dismissed. There are clearly words and phrases in the Tanach that still need investigation, and there’s no reason other than bias against his methodologies that would cause anyone to think that this “someone” is really a “no one” or somehow idiosyncratic in his treatment of the biblical Hebrew lexicon.

I don’t think anyone understands Tanakh perfectly. But does that justify willy-nilly proposing new vocabulary? Or claim that the text is corrupted because it doesn’t follow the patterns taught in class? Or do deeper study into why one may not understand the text as written?

When you make statements like the above (underlined), it almost seems like you may have a streak of humility. Then I remember that this is just a way of saying that no one knows any better than you, recalling that your learning supersedes that of all others who have allowed things such as cognate languages within the Semitic family and the diachronistic examination of the natural evolution of the language to warp their ability to understand the language. I should keep that in mind, though.