Alphabet question please.

A place for those new to Biblical Hebrew to ask basic questions about the language of the Hebrew Bible.
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
Post Reply
talmid56
Posts: 295
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2013 9:02 am
Location: Carlisle, Arkansas, USA

Re: Alphabet question please.

Post by talmid56 »

Well, it could be I'm mistaken in how the term Second Temple Hebrew is used. Some use the term Late Biblical Hebrew for post-exilic Biblical Hebrew used in the Tanakh.
Dewayne Dulaney
דואיין דוליני

Blog: https://letancientvoicesspeak.wordpress.com/

כִּ֤י שֶׁ֨מֶשׁ׀ וּמָגֵן֮ יְהוָ֪ה אֱלֹ֫הִ֥ים חֵ֣ן וְ֭כָבוֹד יִתֵּ֣ן יְהוָ֑ה לֹ֥א יִמְנַע־ט֝֗וֹב לַֽהֹלְכִ֥ים בְּתָמִֽים׃
--(E 84:11) 84:12 תהלים
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1920
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Alphabet question please.

Post by Jason Hare »

kwrandolph wrote: Fri Apr 01, 2022 12:06 pmBefore answering your specific questions, how is the best way to learn a foreign language?
The best way to learn a foreign language is by immersion, which creates situations in which the person who wants to get the hang of the new language must do all she can to understand what is said within her environment, as she begins to use the language for direct communication. This is language acquisition rather than language learning, but it’s also somewhat impossible with regard to biblical languages, since we have no real example of natively spoken language from the period into which to immerse ourselves. This makes it generally irrelevant for biblical languages. However, one of the most important aspects of language acquisition, according to Krashen, is the use of reading as a tool for exposure to new forms and new grammar. In this case, we have the biblical text as our model. The more someone reads the text of the Bible, the more they are exposed to forms and vocabulary, the better their knowledge of biblical Hebrew becomes.
kwrandolph wrote: Fri Apr 01, 2022 12:06 pmYes, you need to start somewhere, but after getting the basics, what method works best? Continue reading about the language, what scholars say about it? Or by plunging into the language and just letting it flow over oneself, getting used to its cadences, ways of expression and unique quirks?
What I get from you, though, is that a student has nowhere to start. You disqualify Weingreen and all the rest because you think you know the language better. Students must begin somewhere, and the grammars that we have today are a GREAT place to begin, even if the student must unlearn some things along the way. That is true with all languages. The grammar books give you general rules, and as you master the language through use and through reading, you learn that those general rules are often broken or just plain wrong. But, it is necessary to start with those grammar books in order to have even basic access to the language. You would have us cast off the grammars in favor of your subjective sense of the text. That is, at least, what I understand from your posts.
kwrandolph wrote: Fri Apr 01, 2022 12:06 pmI started with Weingreen, which is why I mention him. I also had the dictionary by Gesenius. But early on, I got the concordance by Lisowski. Early on I noticed that many glosses in Lisowski differed from those in Gesenius. When comparing glosses to actual uses listed in Lisowski, I found that Lisowski’s glosses tend to be more accurate.
If lexicons contradict how words are used in various contexts, the lexicons are wrong. Everyone knows that. Words are defined by their use. However, the lexicons are an excellent place to begin one’s analysis of the language. They often provide insights that you miss. I don’t see the lexicons being as wrong as you do, for whatever reason, and I read the Hebrew text a LOT.
kwrandolph wrote: Fri Apr 01, 2022 12:06 pmI plunged into the language, and let it flow over me. How many scholars have read Tanakh, starting in Genesis, and reading to the end of 2 Chronicles, even once? Five times? Ten times? Does one need to read it completely through to get a PhD?
You let it flow over you while ignoring grammar, ignoring vowels, making up your own pronunciations, etc. etc. I don’t think you did it right. I don’t think your system is as good as you imagine it to be.
kwrandolph wrote: Fri Apr 01, 2022 12:06 pmAfter reading Tanakh through a few times, I came to realize that what I had learned in class from Weingreen differed from the Hebrew language before me on the pages of Tanakh. Most definitely in the treatment of verbs. I have come to prefer the immersion method of learning foreign languages, and that is basically what I have done to learn Biblical Hebrew. Is the immersion method perfect? Can you think of a better way to learn a foreign language?
It’s worthwhile to approach a language systematically if you are going to discuss it with metalanguage. There are many people who speak a language naturally without knowing anything about grammar. That doesn’t mean that grammar doesn’t exist. You yourself may be completely ignorant of the mechanics of biblical Hebrew and just have a feel for it (I cannot say, since you never produce anything that can be checked), but that doesn’t mean that the Hebrew language doesn’t have grammar and exhibit clear patterns.
kwrandolph wrote: Fri Apr 01, 2022 12:06 pmWhich of those introductory grammars disagree with Weingreen?
Disagree about what?
kwrandolph wrote: Fri Apr 01, 2022 12:06 pmWell, they don’t represent Biblical Hebrew. So what sort of Hebrew do you call it?
Biblical Hebrew.
kwrandolph wrote: Fri Apr 01, 2022 12:06 pmI don’t know the guy from Adam. All I have to go on is that name listed as the author of the papers I read. Some of the ideas contained in the papers are weird.
You’re very proud to know nothing about anyone who teaches or writes about Hebrew. You wear it as a badge, intentionally belittling anyone who has published in the field and acting like they are nothing to do. Well, good for you. Your not publishing obviously has so much more value than their actual publications.
kwrandolph wrote: Fri Apr 01, 2022 12:06 pmOne of the problems in dealing with a “dead” language, where there are no native speakers, is that when one comes across phrases, ways of saying things that one doesn’t understand, is that there are no native speakers of that language who can clarify them. That also goes for words used only once or only a few times, where context doesn’t clarify what was meant. Cognate languages may give a workable meaning, may lead one down the wrong path, so they can’t be trusted.

The same is true of using the language at a different time in its development.
If you think they’re wrong, publish something yourself to demonstrate it. Show the scholars and academics how ignorant they are and how little their PhD’s are really worth.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
The Hebrew Café
יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
ספר משלי י״ב, י׳
talmid56
Posts: 295
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2013 9:02 am
Location: Carlisle, Arkansas, USA

Re: Alphabet question please.

Post by talmid56 »

Karl wrote:
As for the post-Babylonian Exile Hebrew contained in Tanakh, its hard to see a great development of the language as the writers apparently tried, some with greater success than others, to archaicize their use of the written language.

I never said that later forms of Hebrew are not Hebrew, I just say that they are not Biblical Hebrew. No more than that Shakespeare’s English is not English because it differs from modern English.
Are you saying that you don't consider post-exilic Hebrew contained in the Tanakh to be Biblical Hebrew?
Dewayne Dulaney
דואיין דוליני

Blog: https://letancientvoicesspeak.wordpress.com/

כִּ֤י שֶׁ֨מֶשׁ׀ וּמָגֵן֮ יְהוָ֪ה אֱלֹ֫הִ֥ים חֵ֣ן וְ֭כָבוֹד יִתֵּ֣ן יְהוָ֑ה לֹ֥א יִמְנַע־ט֝֗וֹב לַֽהֹלְכִ֥ים בְּתָמִֽים׃
--(E 84:11) 84:12 תהלים
talmid56
Posts: 295
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2013 9:02 am
Location: Carlisle, Arkansas, USA

Re: Alphabet question please.

Post by talmid56 »

As for the niqudot and pronunciation reflected by them, those who have studied the matter more deeply than I would not agree that the pronunciation is purely medieval. Perhaps part of it is, but most I have read on the subject suggest that the pronunciation they preserve is more ancient than that. "How ancient?" is the question. I see no reason why at least the major portion of their system could not reflect the Biblical period. (Keep in mind that period lasted, as far as the written language is concerned, at least a millennium.) If you have some evidence to present that shows otherwise, I'd love to see it.

As for the grammar, the grammarians I've seen always cite Biblical forms and Biblical verses for examples and illustrations, so I fail to see how that is not teaching Biblical Hebrew. While the Masoretes were not perfect, they sought to preserve the past, not innovate. At least, that is my understanding. That would apply to grammar as they worked with it, as well.
Dewayne Dulaney
דואיין דוליני

Blog: https://letancientvoicesspeak.wordpress.com/

כִּ֤י שֶׁ֨מֶשׁ׀ וּמָגֵן֮ יְהוָ֪ה אֱלֹ֫הִ֥ים חֵ֣ן וְ֭כָבוֹד יִתֵּ֣ן יְהוָ֑ה לֹ֥א יִמְנַע־ט֝֗וֹב לַֽהֹלְכִ֥ים בְּתָמִֽים׃
--(E 84:11) 84:12 תהלים
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1920
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Alphabet question please.

Post by Jason Hare »

talmid56 wrote: Fri Apr 01, 2022 1:36 pm As for the niqudot and pronunciation reflected by them...
Just a silly passing comment... There’s a difference between נְקֻדּוֹת nəquddôṯ “dots” (plural of נְקֻדָּה nəquddâ “dot”) and נִקּוּד niqqûḏ “pointing,” though the נִקּוּד niqqûḏ is made up of נְקֻדּוֹת nəquddôṯ “dots” and קַוִּים qavvîm “lines.” A colon is called נְקֻדּוֹתַ֫יִם nəquddôṯáyim “two dots”!

I hear loads of English speakers call the nikkud by the name nekudot, but technically it’s a mistake. The nikkud is a pattern of pointing that uses nekudot.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
The Hebrew Café
יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
ספר משלי י״ב, י׳
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1920
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Alphabet question please.

Post by Jason Hare »

talmid56 wrote: Fri Apr 01, 2022 1:36 pm As for the grammar, the grammarians I've seen always cite Biblical forms and Biblical verses for examples and illustrations, so I fail to see how that is not teaching Biblical Hebrew. While the Masoretes were not perfect, they sought to preserve the past, not innovate. At least, that is my understanding. That would apply to grammar as they worked with it, as well.
I am completely in agreement. The Masoretes were obviously preserving something inherited from previous generations and not just making things up. I wonder if Karl holds to the same degree of skepticism with regard to the grammars of Attic Greek, for example. Is Hebrew the only language that isn’t allowed to change and for which the professors in the field should be derided and ignored?
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
The Hebrew Café
יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
ספר משלי י״ב, י׳
kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Alphabet question please.

Post by kwrandolph »

talmid56 wrote: Fri Apr 01, 2022 12:35 pm Well, it could be I'm mistaken in how the term Second Temple Hebrew is used. Some use the term Late Biblical Hebrew for post-exilic Biblical Hebrew used in the Tanakh.
That is the way I’ve heard the terms used as well.

Karl W. Randolph.
kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Alphabet question please.

Post by kwrandolph »

Jason Hare wrote: Fri Apr 01, 2022 1:12 pm
kwrandolph wrote: Fri Apr 01, 2022 12:06 pmBefore answering your specific questions, how is the best way to learn a foreign language?
The best way to learn a foreign language is by immersion, which creates situations in which the person who wants to get the hang of the new language must do all she can to understand what is said within her environment, as she begins to use the language for direct communication. This is language acquisition rather than language learning, but it’s also somewhat impossible with regard to biblical languages, since we have no real example of natively spoken language from the period into which to immerse ourselves. This makes it generally irrelevant for biblical languages. However, one of the most important aspects of language acquisition, according to Krashen, is the use of reading as a tool for exposure to new forms and new grammar. In this case, we have the biblical text as our model. The more someone reads the text of the Bible, the more they are exposed to forms and vocabulary, the better their knowledge of biblical Hebrew becomes.
kwrandolph wrote: Fri Apr 01, 2022 12:06 pmYes, you need to start somewhere, but after getting the basics, what method works best? Continue reading about the language, what scholars say about it? Or by plunging into the language and just letting it flow over oneself, getting used to its cadences, ways of expression and unique quirks?
What I get from you, though, is that a student has nowhere to start.
Well, then, we should make him a place to start.
Jason Hare wrote: Fri Apr 01, 2022 1:12 pm You disqualify Weingreen and all the rest because you think you know the language better.
Well, Weingreen is unquestionably wrong, especially in his treatment of verbs.
Jason Hare wrote: Fri Apr 01, 2022 1:12 pm Students must begin somewhere, and the grammars that we have today are a GREAT place to begin, even if the student must unlearn some things along the way.
How can something that is wrong be “a GREAT place to begin”? It took me years and a few times reading Tanakh through before I was able to shake off the incorrect teaching I got from Weingreen. How many students ever get to that point? How many read all of Tanakh even once?
Jason Hare wrote: Fri Apr 01, 2022 1:12 pm That is true with all languages. The grammar books give you general rules, and as you master the language through use and through reading, you learn that those general rules are often broken or just plain wrong. But, it is necessary to start with those grammar books in order to have even basic access to the language. You would have us cast off the grammars in favor of your subjective sense of the text. That is, at least, what I understand from your posts.
Which grammar book is not subjective?
Jason Hare wrote: Fri Apr 01, 2022 1:12 pm
kwrandolph wrote: Fri Apr 01, 2022 12:06 pmI started with Weingreen, which is why I mention him. I also had the dictionary by Gesenius. But early on, I got the concordance by Lisowski. Early on I noticed that many glosses in Lisowski differed from those in Gesenius. When comparing glosses to actual uses listed in Lisowski, I found that Lisowski’s glosses tend to be more accurate.
If lexicons contradict how words are used in various contexts, the lexicons are wrong. Everyone knows that. Words are defined by their use. However, the lexicons are an excellent place to begin one’s analysis of the language. They often provide insights that you miss. I don’t see the lexicons being as wrong as you do, for whatever reason, and I read the Hebrew text a LOT.
You read the Hebrew text a lot? How many times have you read it completely through? Every word? Including the very exciting portion of 1 Chronicles 1–10?
Jason Hare wrote: Fri Apr 01, 2022 1:12 pm
kwrandolph wrote: Fri Apr 01, 2022 12:06 pmI plunged into the language, and let it flow over me. How many scholars have read Tanakh, starting in Genesis, and reading to the end of 2 Chronicles, even once? Five times? Ten times? Does one need to read it completely through to get a PhD?
You let it flow over you while ignoring grammar, ignoring vowels, making up your own pronunciations, etc. etc. I don’t think you did it right. I don’t think your system is as good as you imagine it to be.
Slight correction: I didn’t ignore grammar, I just realized that the rules I was taught were wrong. I noticed grammar, just read the text over and over again looking for ways to systemitize grammar that fit the text.
Jason Hare wrote: Fri Apr 01, 2022 1:12 pm
kwrandolph wrote: Fri Apr 01, 2022 12:06 pmAfter reading Tanakh through a few times, I came to realize that what I had learned in class from Weingreen differed from the Hebrew language before me on the pages of Tanakh. Most definitely in the treatment of verbs. I have come to prefer the immersion method of learning foreign languages, and that is basically what I have done to learn Biblical Hebrew. Is the immersion method perfect? Can you think of a better way to learn a foreign language?
It’s worthwhile to approach a language systematically if you are going to discuss it with metalanguage. There are many people who speak a language naturally without knowing anything about grammar. That doesn’t mean that grammar doesn’t exist. You yourself may be completely ignorant of the mechanics of biblical Hebrew and just have a feel for it (I cannot say, since you never produce anything that can be checked), but that doesn’t mean that the Hebrew language doesn’t have grammar and exhibit clear patterns.
See above. You got a copy of my dictionary (not the latest version) and in the apendices at the back there is a systematic grammar. Not in a teaching form, rather as a reference.
Jason Hare wrote: Fri Apr 01, 2022 1:12 pm
kwrandolph wrote: Fri Apr 01, 2022 12:06 pmWhich of those introductory grammars disagree with Weingreen?
Disagree about what?
Teach a different grammar than Weingreen.
Jason Hare wrote: Fri Apr 01, 2022 1:12 pm
kwrandolph wrote: Fri Apr 01, 2022 12:06 pmWell, they don’t represent Biblical Hebrew. So what sort of Hebrew do you call it?
Biblical Hebrew.
Funny.
Jason Hare wrote: Fri Apr 01, 2022 1:12 pm
kwrandolph wrote: Fri Apr 01, 2022 12:06 pmI don’t know the guy from Adam. All I have to go on is that name listed as the author of the papers I read. Some of the ideas contained in the papers are weird.
You’re very proud to know nothing about anyone who teaches or writes about Hebrew. You wear it as a badge, intentionally belittling anyone who has published in the field and acting like they are nothing to do. Well, good for you. Your not publishing obviously has so much more value than their actual publications.
That’s a strange way of putting it. Just because I haven’t kept up with who’s who means I’m proud of it? Would you agree if I posited that you’re more proud of knowing all those who teach about Hebrew than your knowledge of Biblical Hebrew itself?
Jason Hare wrote: Fri Apr 01, 2022 1:12 pm
kwrandolph wrote: Fri Apr 01, 2022 12:06 pmOne of the problems in dealing with a “dead” language, where there are no native speakers, is that when one comes across phrases, ways of saying things that one doesn’t understand, is that there are no native speakers of that language who can clarify them. That also goes for words used only once or only a few times, where context doesn’t clarify what was meant. Cognate languages may give a workable meaning, may lead one down the wrong path, so they can’t be trusted.

The same is true of using the language at a different time in its development.
If you think they’re wrong, publish something yourself to demonstrate it. Show the scholars and academics how ignorant they are and how little their PhD’s are really worth.
What sort of strange statement is that?

Karl W. Randolph.
kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Alphabet question please.

Post by kwrandolph »

talmid56 wrote: Fri Apr 01, 2022 1:26 pm Karl wrote:
As for the post-Babylonian Exile Hebrew contained in Tanakh, its hard to see a great development of the language as the writers apparently tried, some with greater success than others, to archaicize their use of the written language.

I never said that later forms of Hebrew are not Hebrew, I just say that they are not Biblical Hebrew. No more than that Shakespeare’s English is not English because it differs from modern English.
Are you saying that you don't consider post-exilic Hebrew contained in the Tanakh to be Biblical Hebrew?
No, I did not say that.

Karl W. Randolph.
kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Alphabet question please.

Post by kwrandolph »

talmid56 wrote: Fri Apr 01, 2022 1:36 pm As for the niqudot and pronunciation reflected by them, those who have studied the matter more deeply than I would not agree that the pronunciation is purely medieval. Perhaps part of it is, but most I have read on the subject suggest that the pronunciation they preserve is more ancient than that. "How ancient?" is the question. I see no reason why at least the major portion of their system could not reflect the Biblical period. (Keep in mind that period lasted, as far as the written language is concerned, at least a millennium.) If you have some evidence to present that shows otherwise, I'd love to see it.

As for the grammar, the grammarians I've seen always cite Biblical forms and Biblical verses for examples and illustrations, so I fail to see how that is not teaching Biblical Hebrew. While the Masoretes were not perfect, they sought to preserve the past, not innovate. At least, that is my understanding. That would apply to grammar as they worked with it, as well.
When looking at name transcriptions from Hebrew to other languages, there are indications that Hebrew pronunciations changed greatly already by the time of the LXX. Backwards Galilee gives some indications of how the pronunciation changed, maintaining some of the older pronunciations while sophisticated Jerusalem adopted the newer pronunciations, as can be seen in first century transliterations. Probably the most common is the dropping of unstressed vowels at the ends of words. The newer pronunciations also had the BGD-KPT dual phones.

I never studied late Second Temple Hebrew, but I read that the non-Biblical DSS writings already had a largely Indo-European grammar which modern Israeli Hebrew maintains.

What I wrote backs up your claim that the Masoretes largely preserved what they had received, rather than innovated, which I have claimed all along. But that by the time they worked out the niqudot, what they received was medieval, not original Biblical Hebrew.

Karl W. Randolph.
Post Reply