ducky wrote:Aramaic and Hebrew are not very very close as one may think.
A Hebrew man that read Biblical Hebrew fluently, cannot read Aramaic (Biblical or not) unless he studies it.the Grammar is different, conjugations are differents, vocabulary is different and so on...
The biggest problem I had when reading Aramaic without studying it was the vocabulary.
ducky wrote:If there was an influence, it would be seen.
Not in the post-exile Biblical writings, as those writers deliberately archaized their use of Hebrew.
ducky wrote:As for denying the shift from o-->a...
if you can show me a case of that thing happened, then do it.
If you can't, so you denied your question by yourself.
Didn’t you mean A —> O?
Was there a shift? If so, which way did it go? Or was that a differentiation that God placed in the languages already at the Tower of Babel? All I’m saying is that the evidence is inconclusive. Anyone who claims that that shift was certain and that it went a certain way are speculating in the absence of solid evidence.
ducky wrote:As for אבות/אבת and as for your claim...
I have to say that once again.
If you can prove your claim by showing me a set of clear examples that shows that the suffix changes the meaning, I'll go with you on that and be happy to learn that.
But I don't think we can find a set of clear examples.
Go ahead and look them up. There are more than 200 verses that have אבות and a larger number of verses that have אבת, too many to be a spelling/copyist error. Then add to these the other nouns that end with a tau suffix, that certainly shows that the pattern exists. That the pattern exists then brings up the next question—what meaning does the addition of the tau suffix impart to the noun?
ducky wrote:As for Psalms 22
I actually had a discussion about it in the past and proved that the MT text, in this case, is the right one.
Also, any reading of this word as a verb with the meaning of "piercing" just comes from a misknowledge of the root meaning. (because of the English language that has a semantic link between two meaning for one word). and that alone, already make the known claim invalid.
But Allow me not to get into that right now. Maybe in the future.
The English comes from the LXX because the MT is obviously wrong—grammar and syntax demand that כאר be a verb. But the LXX has two mistakes: 1) they thought it was a misspelling for כרה instead of the verb כאר, and 2) they thought that כרה meant “to dig”. The Nahal Hebre scrap, as well as a few other manuscripts, have it right.
ducky wrote:Anyway, as for this subject, It is not on me to prove you wrong. because I follow the simple mainstream view that was known for ages. I think you are the first one who has this claim that differs the suffix ות from the ת.
ּSo I think that it is on you to prove your claim.
All you got to do is just show a set of clear examples.
What makes you think that the mainstream view is correct?
The native tongue of the Masoretes was Aramaic, that is of those who were native to that area. The Hebrew that the Masoretes knew was medieval Hebrew, which they mistakenly assumed to be the same as Biblical Hebrew. That mistaken view of Biblical Hebrew was taught as late as when I studied in college.
What I’ve learned is that very few professors have read Tanakh through even once, a few maybe twice. But it isn’t until one reads Tanakh at least five times or more that he starts getting a feel for the language. After ten times he starts getting fluent in Biblical Hebrew, on the easier to read books. After about 15 times reading Tanakh cover to cover, all the way through, he starts catching on to figures of speech such as euphemisms. After 20 times poetry such as the book of Job become fairly easy to read. Do you know of any professors who have done the study needed to back up their mainstream view?
How many times have
you read Tanakh, cover to cover, all the way through?
Karl W. Randolph.