חרש from Qal to Hiphil?

[kwrandolph]

Let's focus.
Look again at the beginning of the thread.
It started with a question about חרש and חרש.
Two roots that have different meanings.

In other words, the question asks How come there are two words with the same set of signs and in the same order, but still don't have the same meaning?

Simple, they’re homonyms. All languages have homonyms, why should Biblical Hebrew be considered differently?

Now this is strange.
How come Aramaic and Arabic and other languages in the Semitic family differ these roots completely,
But Hebrew write the sign the same?

Who knows? Here we speculate. What if Hebrew were the original, and Aramaic and Arabic added phonemes though contacts with other linguistic groups? For example, we find that Yemenite Arabic had the most phonemes of Arabic dialects, and Yemen had the most contacts with east Asia and Africa. Likewise both Aramaic and Arabic had more contacts with other languages than did Hebrew.

And so, Hebrew used the sign 5 to express (or to be the home for) two phonemes.

Why don’t you acknowledge that Hebrew may have been the original, and in the other languages the one phoneme was split into two?

But it can be imported from another, natively spoken cognate language into Hebrew spoken as a second language.

Since this case happens in other languages, then it couldn't be imported without breaking the pattern and it will get "messy".

It does get “messy” at times.

And indeed, there are cases that happened when one language imported a word while creating a backward false correction.
(meaning that the language that imported a root with a specific letter "converted" it to fit itself, without noticing that the letter wasn't in a need for a "conversion".)

Another simple example is Sodom and Gomorrah.
Gomorrah in Hebrew is עמורה.
How does the letter Ayin-ע is translated into a G.
It's hard to understand it, unless we know that the letter Ayin=ע represents also the phoneme of GH (which western languages wrote it as a G).
So, the letter Ayin is Hebrew represented two phonemes: 1. Ayin (throat), and 2. GH

Nope. What that indicates is that in Biblical Hebrew, the Ayin most likely was a full glottal stop, which some non-native speakers heard as a “g”, others as a hard vowel. It has no bearing on the theory that Ayin represented two root letters.

But if so, then all of Hebrew letter Ayin would have been translated like that (with a G).

Not true. Reread what I wrote above.

Karl W. Randolph.

[ducky]

Hi Karl,

Once again, I'm trying to narrow the subjects.

Hebrew can also be an original.
For example, in the word לבש or שלום and such, the Hebrew ש represent the original Semitic phoneme, while in the Arabic S-L-M or L-B-S, the letter S does not.

Most of the times we can find the original phonemes in the Arabic letters.
For the simple reason that they have enough letters (28) as opposed, for example, to the Hebrew's 22.

The understanding of the route is really just logical.
It can only go one way.

I let go of the ש and move to talk about three phonemes sound:
D
TH (in THis)
Z

Hebrew has a letter ז that represents the sound Z, and the letter ד that represents the sound D.
Aramaic has a letter ז that represents the sound Z, and the letter ד that represents the sound D.
Arabic has its own letter ז (sign: ز) that represents the sound Z, and its own letter ד (sign: د) that represents the sound D.

What about the TH (in THis)?
Arabic has its letter (sign: ذ) that represents the sound TH (THis).

And what about Hebrew and Aramaic that doesn't have specific letters?
Hebrew writes that with letter ז (Hebrew eventually softened the sound).
And Aramaic writes that with letter as ד (Aramaic eventually toughened the sound).

So now, if I see the same root in Hebrew and Aramaic, with the same meaning, but with one difference in the letters, which is:
Hebrew writes it with ז,
And Aramaic writes it with ד.
I'd know that I'm looking at the TH essence.

But sometimes when the Hebrew writes ז - it is just an original ז=Z.
And When Aramaic writes ד - it is just an original ד=D.
And therefore, when the letters represent the original Z and D - there will not be a match between the Hebrew and Aramaic root.

Hebrew and Aramaic (for example), added to their letters more "essences", but it doesn't mean that the letters don't represent also their original "essence".

I wrote the relationship of the TH with Arabic, Aramaic, and Hebrew.
But it is more languages of course. For example: Akkadian, Ugarit, Ethiopian (Gez).

And each language has its way.

So the route must be that there were more phonemes than Hebrew's letter, and so Hebrew used some letters to express the phoneme-sound that was letter-less.

**
The way you suggest is illogical.

You say that Hebrew use the original, and all of the rest made changes.
So let's assume 26 Hebrew roots.
Root A, Root B... Root Z.
Each one of the roots has the letter ז in it.
And that is the original form.

So if it is the original form, we assume that all of the other languages also started these 26 roots with letter ז (each one and its sign).
And then, through time, the roots started changing in the other languages,
But in a magical way, the exact 13 roots (let's say) that were changed in Arabic, were also changed in Akkadian. And in Ethiopian. And in Ugarit.
It is amazing. All of the languages together, One from Arabia, one from Lebanon, One from Syria, one from Ethiopia and so on... All of them agreed what exact roots from the 26 would change the sign to another sign, and what roots will stay untouched.
How can it be?
The only way it can be, is if the lords of every place, created some secret Language illuminati, and said: Let's make a list of roots with similar signs, and then decide together which roots we want to differ from the list and give them another sign... But shush.... Remember, we mustn't tell the Jews.

You can see that this couldn't be.
First, because it is hard to believe that there would be any kind of illuminati without the Jews being on it.
Second, because it just couldn't be.

**********************************************
What could have been, is that from the start, there were more phonemes, and therefore, there is an agreement between the roots in every language.
And those who have more letters have more sign-representation to each phoneme, while those who don't have enough letters made the adjustment of what each letter represents and how.


I hope that sums it.

[kwrandolph]

Hi Karl,

Once again, I'm trying to narrow the subjects.

Hebrew can also be an original.
For example, in the word לבש or שלום and such, the Hebrew ש represent the original Semitic phoneme, while in the Arabic S-L-M or L-B-S, the letter S does not.

Most of the times we can find the original phonemes in the Arabic letters.

No evidence that the Arabic phonemes are original, and weren’t added later.

The understanding of the route is really just logical.
It can only go one way.

Wrong, it can go both ways.

So the route must be that there were more phonemes than Hebrew's letter, and so Hebrew used some letters to express the phoneme-sound that was letter-less.

That is not the way it went.

The way you suggest is illogical.

Why? Why should it be your way?

What could have been, is that from the start, there were more phonemes, and therefore, there is an agreement between the roots in every language.
And those who have more letters have more sign-representation to each phoneme, while those who don't have enough letters made the adjustment of what each letter represents and how.

Is your theory how things happened in history, or are there other explanations?

We have Hebrew language documented from about 1450 BC. There are literary indications that Moses used older written documents to compile Genesis—did he just quote them, or translate them into Hebrew?

When God mixed the languages at the Tower of Babel, were Aramaic and Arabic languages already created there?

I hope that sums it.

No it doesn’t. You have no evidence that Hebrew originally had more phonemes than written letters.

What we have is history. The last people who spoke Hebrew as their native tongue died about 500 BC. Jews then spoke other languages as their native tongues. But Hebrew was still the language used in religion. Those who spoke cognate languages then tended to read Hebrew with the pronunciations of their native tongues. If their native tongues had more phonemes than Hebrew, they then tried to read Hebrew with the phonemes of their native tongues.

There is no evidence from history that Hebrew originally had more consonants than the 22 letters of their writing system. There is historical evidence that additional phonemes could have been added later.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Chris Watts]

Karl Wrote :

The last people who spoke Hebrew as their native tongue died about 500 BC. Jews then spoke other languages as their native tongues. But Hebrew was still the language used in religion. Those who spoke cognate languages then tended to read Hebrew with the pronunciations of their native tongues.

Hallo Karl how are you, Karl, This is a harsh statement not based on anything that is even remotely realistic. I know you prefer facts to logical thinking, but all I can offer you are the following points of reason:

1. There were thousands in Israel and no doubt hundreds in Judah that never went into captivity to Babylon. It would have been very likely for them to have continued to speak vernacular hebrew.

2. With regards to the returning Jews who would be speaking aramaic and might well have dominated those who by now had had children and families and increased in population, there would have been in both camps, that is the resident Jews' second and third generation who were not brought up in Babylon along with the returning Jews speaking aramaic, within both these camps there would have been "die-hards", just like you have today in Scottish gaelic, Irish Gaelic, Welsh and Cornish Gaelic, die-hard nationalists who would have resented foreign influence in their spoken Hebrew. Even with my Dutch language there are die-hards who utterly resent the importing of English words and new spellings and refuse to use them (including myself). There are always men and women in every generation, including scholars, who would gladly retain their own vernacular language during oppression and exile and pass it on to their own children. There is nothing that can deny this, absolutely nothing.

3. Yes you are right when you say that when we first encounter or start to learn a foreign language we speak the vowels and consonants with our own native pronunciation, I have done that and know others have done this. But, and this is a HUGE but, this is not the reality. There would have been many aramaic and vernacular hebrew teachers around more than willing to correct this. One never continues to speak a foreign language with a different pronunciation unless they are learning it on a desert Island in the middle of nowhere.

None of the above points are intended to deny anything you say about the loss of original pronunciation and isolated definitions of Hebrew spoken 2500 years ago. What I wanted to tackle was your belief that it all died out because of the babylonian exile, and that after this no one spoke pre-exilic hebrew, historical logical reasoning counters this thought through practical historical realities experienced both in the world today and in the nature and motivation of individuals to hold on to what is dear to them in spite of over-whelming pressure to change.

Thank you
Kind regards
Chris watts

[ducky]

Here's a story.

A group of ten guys took a trip around the world, and they decided they would spend each night at another place, at some random house that will agree to accept them.

They've been to Thailand, knocked on a door, and were welcomed in.
The host told them that they can stay for the night, and separated them to two groups, of Six and Four.
He told the Six to stay in one room, and the Four to stay in another room.
Fine.

The Next day, they were in Alaska.
Knocked on the door and were welcomed for the night.
Once again, the host separated them into Six and Four. The exact same Six, and the exact same Four.
The Six in one room, and the Four in another room.
Strange, but fine.

The next day, they went to Morrocco.
And once again.
The same Six here, and the same Four there.

And so was it in France, And in China, And in Australia, And in Russia, And in Mexico, And in India.

They started to realize that if each and every place and host, that they've been at, separated them in the exact same way, there must be some sort of a distincting-sign. A sign that every host in every place recognized, and that caused him to separate them exactly in the same manner. Six and Four.
There is no doubt about it, everyone agreed.
We wouldn't say that the hosts knew each other and playfully pranked us.
Surely, there is some distincting-sign.


But then, on their last day, they came to Finland.
Knocked on the door and were welcomed for the night.
The host, unexpectedly, told everyone, the whole ten, to stay in one room.
Everybody was mazed.
They got inside this one room and started debating.

Some guy started to say (his name was Karl, by the way), that since we are hosted now in the same room, means that there is no distincting-sign at all.
Here is the proof: We are all in the same room.
Don't you have eyes?

But then the others asked: If there is no distincting-sign, then how come all of the other hosts did separate us in the same manner of the same Six and the same Four?
The only way that we can explain it, is that there is a distincting-sign. No other way to explain it.

Well then, said this guy, then how come we are now hosted in the same one room?

And they told him: That's simple, peep outside the door.
This house. Has only. One room.
If it has more rooms, then this host would have also separated us exactly as the others did.
But this nice Finnish host, this poor man, has only one room. And therefore, he put all of us together.

No. No. Said Karl.
It is not the only way to understand it.
We can understand it in a way that there is not distincting-sign at all between us.

Well, explain it to us, said everybody (or at least just me).

[kwrandolph]

Karl Wrote :

The last people who spoke Hebrew as their native tongue died about 500 BC. Jews then spoke other languages as their native tongues. But Hebrew was still the language used in religion. Those who spoke cognate languages then tended to read Hebrew with the pronunciations of their native tongues.

Hallo Karl how are you, Karl,

I’m fine, thank you. And you?

This is a harsh statement not based on anything that is even remotely realistic. I know you prefer facts to logical thinking, but all I can offer you are the following points of reason:

1. There were thousands in Israel and no doubt hundreds in Judah that never went into captivity to Babylon. It would have been very likely for them to have continued to speak vernacular hebrew.

They did not stay in Judea. They all went to Egypt and dragged an unwilling Jeremiah along with them. Their children would have picked up Coptic. They and their children did not return to Judea. This rules out your second point.

3. Yes you are right when you say that when we first encounter or start to learn a foreign language we speak the vowels and consonants with our own native pronunciation, I have done that and know others have done this. But, and this is a HUGE but, this is not the reality. There would have been many aramaic and vernacular hebrew teachers around more than willing to correct this. One never continues to speak a foreign language with a different pronunciation unless they are learning it on a desert Island in the middle of nowhere.

We see this in Europe with Latin. For over a thousand years after Rome fell, Latin remained the language of law, of high literature, of international trade and diplomacy. But over the centuries, influenced by the languages that the people spoke as their native tongues, the pronunciation of Latin changed. The same thing happened to Hebrew. It was not sudden, rather took centuries.

None of the above points are intended to deny anything you say about the loss of original pronunciation and isolated definitions of Hebrew spoken 2500 years ago. What I wanted to tackle was your belief that it all died out because of the babylonian exile, and that after this no one spoke pre-exilic hebrew, historical logical reasoning counters this thought through practical historical realities experienced both in the world today and in the nature and motivation of individuals to hold on to what is dear to them in spite of over-whelming pressure to change.

Thank you
Kind regards
Chris watts

What I keep trying to emphasize is that Hebrew ceased being spoken as a native tongue. But, like medieval Latin, continued to be spoken as a second language. As a second language, it was more prone to corruption than a native tongue. An example of change is a replacement of a large portion of its grammar.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Chris Watts]

Karl said : I’m fine, thank you. And you?

Not so fine - 'cause you keep arguing...

Karl Karl Karl, I know you have extensive knowledge about so many things, you are an intelligent person, but it is a complete mystery to me why you insist that conversational hebrew died out so quickly - you can not say that! And you can not say that every single man and women went into Egypt. I agree that vernacular/conversational hebrew faded and changed over many hundreds of years after the exile. But not every single man woman and child went to Egypt, and even if they did, some would have returned, Jeremiah and his coffee buddy returned right?. Generalisations about events and lands and peoples are simply made to reflect the seriousness of something and the fact that the effect is upon the majority. There are always going to be a small proportion lucky enough or blessed enough to escape the pronouncements DESPITE scripture's silence on the issue.

A Jewish presence in Jerusalem - regardless of the Roman, Crusader catholics, Mohammedan, Ottoman conquests has always been the reality. Yet the generalisation is that they are no longer in the land, these are not contradictory concepts. History will always generate exceptions to the rule. The scripture does not deem it necessary to record every single action about every single individual in God's dealings with mankind. We are given Generalisations, but except for a handful of rare occasions, we are never given details.

We all know the story of a valiant and brave warrior - Naaman the Syrian General. (1 Kings 5) How he was healed after reluctantly agreeing to Elisha's instructions. But how many of us ask the question as to Why he went to Elisha and how he knew about Elisha? Was it not a conversation between Naaman's wife and a young Jewish captive girl? And it was not even the wife who told her husband about what the slave girl had mentioned. Look how different we might be speculating about Naaman if these details were not given to us.

Karl responded : For over a thousand years after Rome fell, Latin remained the language of law, of high literature, of international trade and diplomacy. But over the centuries, influenced by the languages that the people spoke as their native tongues

The issue here Karl is that Latin NEVER identified a people. Latin was NEVER a peoples' identity. Hebrew was and is and shall always be a significant part of Jewish Identity. No other people in the whole world over the last 2000 years, no other tribe, culture or land has ever suffered complete devastation, its people carried away, forced to assimilate, and lost every bit of their possession and YET and yet has retained an identity, a language and a cultural awareness while still being separated by thousands of miles of ocean and borders and different cultures. If this is what has been the reality over the last 2000 years Karl, how on earth can you possibly retain the notion that a handful of Jews in Egypt and in Babylon lost all their language because of a mere 70 years away from Israel? Motivated by pain and a longing and a desire, motivated by hate of the foreign invader...yes of course they would have spoken aramaic and many stayed in both Babylon and Persia even after the captivity finished - (yet scripture is silent on this point, only mentioning that they RETURNED, so would you now say that none stayed behind simply because Nehemiah and Ezra are silent on this?). But some would have retained their vernacular, some of those who were children and now adults would have been brought up in two languages.

I know that you said :

But, like medieval Latin, continued to be spoken as a second language.

So you have changed your stance slightly, you agree that vernacular hebrew did not die out with the last breath of a 90 year old bearded Jew in 501 BC?

Chris watts

[kwrandolph]

Karl said : I’m fine, thank you. And you?

Not so fine - 'cause you keep arguing...

I keep trying to say the same thing over and over again.

Karl Karl Karl, I know you have extensive knowledge about so many things, you are an intelligent person, but it is a complete mystery to me why you insist that conversational hebrew died out so quickly

I did not say that. What I repeatedly say is “native speaking” of Hebrew died out. But people kept speaking it, as a second language, just like medieval Europeans continued using Latin. There are still people who can carry on a conversation in Latin. Even though there are no native speakers of Latin. There is a difference.

And you can not say that every single man and women went into Egypt.

That’s what Jeremiah said. Who am I to contradict Jeremiah?

I agree that vernacular/conversational hebrew faded and changed over many hundreds of years after the exile. But not every single man woman and child went to Egypt, and even if they did, some would have returned, Jeremiah and his coffee buddy returned right?.

No.

Generalisations about events and lands and peoples are simply made to reflect the seriousness of something and the fact that the effect is upon the majority. There are always going to be a small proportion lucky enough or blessed enough to escape the pronouncements DESPITE scripture's silence on the issue.

Scripture is not silent on this issue.

A Jewish presence in Jerusalem - regardless of the Roman, Crusader catholics, Mohammedan, Ottoman conquests has always been the reality.

This is all AD. Jeremiah is BC.

We all know the story of a valiant and brave warrior - Naaman the Syrian General. (1 Kings 5) How he was healed after reluctantly agreeing to Elisha's instructions. But how many of us ask the question as to Why he went to Elisha and how he knew about Elisha?

Read on, and you give the answer to this question.

Was it not a conversation between Naaman's wife and a young Jewish captive girl? And it was not even the wife who told her husband about what the slave girl had mentioned. Look how different we might be speculating about Naaman if these details were not given to us.

Karl responded : For over a thousand years after Rome fell, Latin remained the language of law, of high literature, of international trade and diplomacy. But over the centuries, influenced by the languages that the people spoke as their native tongues

The issue here Karl is that Latin NEVER identified a people. Latin was NEVER a peoples' identity.

It was the language identity of the “Holy Roman Empire” and everyone who lived in it.

Hebrew was and is and shall always be a significant part of Jewish Identity.

That does not mean that anyone spoke Hebrew as his native tongue.

No other people in the whole world over the last 2000 years, no other tribe, culture or land has ever suffered complete devastation, its people carried away, forced to assimilate, and lost every bit of their possession and YET and yet has retained an identity, a language and a cultural awareness while still being separated by thousands of miles of ocean and borders and different cultures. If this is what has been the reality over the last 2000 years Karl, how on earth can you possibly retain the notion that a handful of Jews in Egypt and in Babylon lost all their language because of a mere 70 years away from Israel?

Who says that they lost all their language? But where is the evidence that any one of them retained a native speaking ability of Biblical Hebrew?

Motivated by pain and a longing and a desire, motivated by hate of the foreign invader...yes of course they would have spoken aramaic and many stayed in both Babylon and Persia even after the captivity finished - (yet scripture is silent on this point, only mentioning that they RETURNED, so would you now say that none stayed behind simply because Nehemiah and Ezra are silent on this?).

Ezra and Nehemiah were not silent.

But some would have retained their vernacular, some of those who were children and now adults would have been brought up in two languages.

I know that you said :

But, like medieval Latin, continued to be spoken as a second language.

So you have changed your stance slightly, you agree that vernacular hebrew did not die out with the last breath of a 90 year old bearded Jew in 501 BC?

Chris watts

I have not changed my views. There is a major difference between a native speaker, and speaking a language as a second language.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Chris Watts]

Karl I am going to keep this short and brief because I am in no mood to argue with a couple of my points that you have taken completely out of that so important context within which I was attempting to expound a serious point of logical and historical consideration. Nevertheless there is one point that I will endeavour to bring to your attention and it is this :

Chris Watts wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2024 5:31 am
I agree that vernacular/conversational hebrew faded and changed over many hundreds of years after the exile. But not every single man woman and child went to Egypt, and even if they did, some would have returned, Jeremiah and his coffee buddy returned right?.

You then responded :

No

To your response I say look at both Jeremiah 44:26-28 and then Jeremiah 45:4-5. Leaving the obvious logical conclusion behind that God would not have included Jeremiah and Baruch in his pronouncement that they would be killed off, it is clear from this alone that they may well have returned to Judah along with many many others.

Also I just thought of another piece of thoroughly unrecorded non-scriptural deductive logic. Who on earth collected the parchments of Jeremiah? you know, all the things his secretary recorded? How did they find their way back to Jerusalem? How actually did they find their way to Daniel some years later? Emailed from Cairo?

chris watts

[kwrandolph]

Chris: Look at Jeremiah 41:17 and it says “everybody”. Again 42:17 all die. 43:5–6 all those left in the land went to Egypt, none left in Judea.

Jeremiah sent his writings to Babylon from Egypt. Jeremiah 51:60.

As I wrote before, who am I to contradict Jeremiah?

Karl W. Randolph.