Question on the name Samuel from 1 Sam 1:20

[kwrandolph]

Are we discussing Biblical Hebrew, or something else?

I don't know what you're discussing, but my Bible and every printed Bible I've ever seen has the Masoretic vocalization. It is, therefore, biblical Hebrew.

So what do you consider Biblical Hebrew? See my next message.

Karl W. Randolph.

[kwrandolph]

Are we discussing Biblical Hebrew, or something else?

I don't know what you're discussing, but my Bible and every printed Bible I've ever seen has the Masoretic vocalization. It is, therefore, biblical Hebrew.

Oh you’re one of those. That you cannot imagine the Bible without the Masoretic points.

It has probably been a couple of decades since I started reading the Bible on a computer rather than on paper. The first Hebrew Bible I found that I could download and read on my computer had no points, though it did distinguish between the Sin and Shin. On computers where I can control even which font to use, I use a font based on the Gezar Calendar. I find that font easier to read than the Aramaic square characters used by moderns. Downloading from places like crosswire.org allows me to carry more than one version on a device as small as an iPod Touch that fits in my shirt pocket. One of those versions, the Aleppo text, doesn’t distinguish even between the Sin and Shin, nor does it have any of the other Masoretic points. When I have a question on the text, I check the DSS, none of which have any Masoretic points. Therefore, when I think of Biblical Hebrew, it has no points.

When I think of medieval Hebrew, that is not Biblical Hebrew, that has the Masoretic points.

So when I ask the question “Are we discussing Biblical Hebrew, or something else?”, are we discussing Biblical Hebrew which has no points, or something else like medieval Hebrew that has the points?

I do agree with you on some points about that not all of the Dagesh's represents a very old pronunciation, but in times, the Dagesh's were part of the pronounciations from part of the evolution of the languages (also in the biblical times)
Just like any language has its evolution in any given time, so does Hebrew had it, inside the biblical era, and also post it.

Can you give documentation from within Hebrew that dates from the Biblical era? “Biblical era” rules out post-Biblical Hebrew, such as found in the DSS non-Biblical Hebrew texts.

About the Armaic stuff that you wrote.
I think you said it yourself, that you don't know Aramaic, and its grammar and its noun-forms and verb-forms, so How can you claim your claim if you don't know.

I know enough Aramaic to read the Aramaic verse in Jeremiah, and the Aramaic portions of Daniel and Ezra. But I’m no expert in the language. Knowing enough to read some limited texts in the language doesn’t make one an expert in that language.

Sounds like conspiracy theory.
You say that hebrew was influenced by the ambience after the exile but negating interaction with other semitic languages in early times?

This is a matter of linguistic isolation. Before the exile, from the time of Moses to Nebuchadnezzar, the vast majority of Jews never heard a foreign language. The percentage who were exposed to foreign languages was probably less than one percent. Hence the language remained quite stable.

During and after the exile, when Jews were surrounded by majority Aramaic speakers, whose own children and grandchildren spoke Aramaic better than they spoke Hebrew, if they spoke Hebrew at all, there you have a recipe for rapid linguistic change, much of it happening within the first couple of generations. And that change was influenced by the majority languages spoken, which later included Persian and Greek.

Karl W. Randolph.

[ducky]

Hi Karl,

Authentic documentations from the Biblical era are only the texts from archiologies, such as letters or other written stuff.
But what do you seek to find there?

By the way, I guess you already know that in Archiology, the suffix of "him" is always with ה and not with ו (as the common Biblical way)
(his slave עבדה in archiology vs. עבדו in the bible most of the times)

but the עבדה lost the H sound and became עבדו - and that is also part of evolution that is inside the bible.

****
I think that this repeating arguments between your view and others' would have no "winners" - because everyone is right.
You are right if you want to go as back as you can think of - and call it "the real Hebrew"
And others are right when they accept Hebrew as a living language (like any language) and it doesn't really matter if there is a natural change that happened.

Here an example,
Hebrew as a mobile Sheva as you know.
But this mobile Sheva is not an original Hebrew thing.
And probably, the DSS speakers didn't "got" it.
(This is according to the way they were writing the verbs, it seems that they didn't have a mobile Sheva)

So now you can say that each one who talks about Hebrew and talks about a mobile Sheva - does not really talk about Hebrew.

Also, about some vowels that are not original in Hebrew.

Or the forms (like I talk about the form of qatl/qitl/qutl in another thread).

Or about the alternative sounds B-V / P-F / K-KH.
They were also quite late.

So if Hebrew for you is only a Hebrew on a specific era.
So I guess you can reach that, and then vowel yourself the words according to the way you want. (and of course there were a few dialects of Hebrew at the early times, according to the region)

*************
About Aramaic,
I didn't understand what you're saying.
You claimed that post biblical Hebrew (and with that also the MT way) is based on the Aramaic grammar and pronunciation.
But if you can read Daniel, do you really see its Aramaic grammar and forms fit the Hebrew's ones?

[Refael Shalev]

Hi Karl,
O.k and arabic was isolated and aramaic too...
And yet they share similar characteristics. The dagesh forte embedded in the consonantal structure like in טל-טללים or in verbs such בזזו-יבוזו.
I find it hard to believe that the dagesh was added, the tendency is to omit it. In the masoratic hebrew in final consonant and today completely.

[kwrandolph]

By the way, I guess you already know that in Archiology, the suffix of "him" is always with ה and not with ו (as the common Biblical way)
(his slave עבדה in archiology vs. עבדו in the bible most of the times)

The Siloam Inscription, one of the few that I have seen, has ו for the third person singular suffix.

You are right if you want to go as back as you can think of - and call it "the real Hebrew"… So if Hebrew for you is only a Hebrew on a specific era.

Please don’t misquote me.

My emphasis is on Biblical Hebrew, as opposed to other forms of Hebrew from other times. I keep saying “Biblical Hebrew” for a reason. That reason is so no one should mistake me for including other forms of Hebrew.

I don’t know those other forms of Hebrew, other than descriptions about them. Those descriptions show that they are very different from Biblical Hebrew.

Hi Karl,
O.k and arabic was isolated and aramaic too...

I can’t believe that this is a serious statement, given the history of those two languages.

And yet they share similar characteristics. The dagesh forte embedded in the consonantal structure like in טל-טללים or in verbs such בזזו-יבוזו.
I find it hard to believe that the dagesh was added, the tendency is to omit it. In the masoratic hebrew in final consonant and today completely.

Just because something is found in a cognate language, does not follow that it was ever found in Biblical Hebrew. To be evidence here, you need to show it in Biblical Hebrew.

Karl W. Randolph.

[ducky]

Hi Refael,

But one can say (like me) that maybe the forms are based also on two letters root, and some on three letters roots.
(which the two letters root got expanded later to three)

so if we'll take the word "heart" לב=lev in Hebrew
we do see the noun לבב=levav as well.

But it could be that the word "my heart" לבי=libbi was actually "libi" (with one B) as there was no doubling at all. which was only based on two letters root LB.

Only later, when roots started to expand in a few ways, and some of them were expanded by doubling the last letter (such as לב to לבב) - only then, the word לבי=libi was turned to libbi.
But who knows when that happened.


I actually think that the true form was simply libi which then later turned to libbi.

But it could be that it is not about the expanding of the root at all, and this doubling could occure from anoher reason than a root. it could be a Dagesh to keep the small vowel Hiriq, when the accent went forward.
as: lib is the noun
"my lib" was libi (with the accent on the first vowel).
and then when the vowel went forward, the first vowel "i" must be "kept" by a closed syllable, and so, the Dagesh came to close it.

and if so, this Dagesh did not come to create the root לבב, but simply to keep the vowel.

So when one wants to doubt this origin of dagesh (by trying to check the old form), I don't think we can come against that view.

***
And indeed in other Semtic languages we do see this doubling, and so, it could be that I'm wrong.
But I also checked Ugarit, which is a close langusge to Hebrew, and I saw that thee is no doubling there.
My Heart: lby
His/Her Heart: lbh

So why there is no doubling there?
I wonder.

[ducky]

By the way, I guess you already know that in Archiology, the suffix of "him" is always with ה and not with ו (as the common Biblical way)
(his slave עבדה in archiology vs. עבדו in the bible most of the times)

The Siloam Inscription, one of the few that I have seen, has ו for the third person singular suffix.

you're talking about the word רעו.
This is probably no "re'o" - but to be read "re'u"
רעהו->רעו
re'ehu->r'eu.
a drop of the H and a "shrink" of the word.
This case doesn't seem to indicate about a made process for the suffixed forms since it seems that it is the word רעהו in the specific accent of the writer.
And especially when this script is the only one that one can point at.
And even if you still stick to that, then it still would be a single case.

And with that, you still need to face the fact that the biblical way is different than the way of the authentic scripts at that time.

You are right if you want to go as back as you can think of - and call it "the real Hebrew"… So if Hebrew for you is only a Hebrew on a specific era.

Please don’t misquote me.

My emphasis is on Biblical Hebrew, as opposed to other forms of Hebrew from other times. I keep saying “Biblical Hebrew” for a reason. That reason is so no one should mistake me for including other forms of Hebrew.

I don’t know those other forms of Hebrew, other than descriptions about them. Those descriptions show that they are very different from Biblical Hebrew.

Then I am confused.
I don't understand what you call biblical Hebrew and what not.
You must give an exampe of a verse or something like that or give some "rules" about Biblical Hebrew as you see it.
Not to argue with you, but to really understand what you mean, because I think I didn't understand you.

[ducky]

Hi Karl,

adding to my last post.

Maybe, let's take the Siloam Inscription that you've talked about.
And trough this Inscription, try to expalin how you rad it, or analize it according to the way you think it should be read or analized in Biblical Hebrew.

I think this would be a good way.

[Jason Hare]

I can’t believe that this is a serious statement, given the history of those two languages.

This is how I feel about almost everything you say.

[Jason Hare]

Oh you’re one of those. That you cannot imagine the Bible without the Masoretic points.

If anyone should be warned against misrepresentation, it is you. Are you not aware that Torah scrolls in the synagogue are handwritten without vowels or any diacritics? The most revered text among Jews has no vowel points written on it. Therefore, "that you cannot imagine the Bible without the Masoretic points" is clearly an absurd position for you to take.

However, to say that all printed editions of the Bible have vowel points, but that the language in the Bible is NOT the biblical language makes absolutely no sense. The Bible (the Bible - yes, the Bible) has vowel points in it. Period. To call it anything other than the BIBLICAL language is foolishness.

It has probably been a couple of decades since I started reading the Bible on a computer rather than on paper. The first Hebrew Bible I found that I could download and read on my computer had no points, though it did distinguish between the Sin and Shin. On computers where I can control even which font to use, I use a font based on the Gezar Calendar. I find that font easier to read than the Aramaic square characters used by moderns. Downloading from places like crosswire.org allows me to carry more than one version on a device as small as an iPod Touch that fits in my shirt pocket. One of those versions, the Aleppo text, doesn’t distinguish even between the Sin and Shin, nor does it have any of the other Masoretic points. When I have a question on the text, I check the DSS, none of which have any Masoretic points. Therefore, when I think of Biblical Hebrew, it has no points.

I cannot imagine that you've done yourself any favors. I don't buy your understanding of the Hebrew Bible generally, and on the basis of your general inability to deal with the text, it seems that you've made it too difficult for yourself.

Just imagine how much we could accomplish on this forum if it weren't crowded by people telling us to reject everything that we know about Hebrew at every step. Imagine what could be shared, how many people could be introduced to the language and to the Bible, how we could re-invent this online space... if only we didn't have to argue every day that the text should be understood as it stands, that the vowel points reflect something sensible, that we can actually pronounce the words as written, that we don't need to give a pronunciation-less text to students of the biblical corpus. Imagine a B-Hebrew that just functioned! Imagine a place where we didn't get tied up in such dumb arguments every single day. What a world that would be! What a world, indeed.