B-Hebrew: The Biblical Hebrew Forum

Hello Karl,

*It is hard for me to believe that your problem with reading Aramaic is just the vocabulary. the grammar and verb-system are different from Hebrew. But still, If you say so...

*The study is Aramism is based on the post-exile biblical texts, so I don't know why you said that it was archaized. Because it is not.

*The shift was from Long "a" to "o"...
I wrote O-->A because that is what YOU wrote in your comment, so I commented according to you.
The Canaanic Shift is a known conclusive thing. You shouldn't say there is no evidence if you didn't study this case.
I also see that you look at the Hebrew language as if it is not connected to any other language. But it is.

As for אבת/אבות
I'm not going to look them up.
If you can prove the difference between the suffix ת and ות then you should look at any noun. Not just the one that can be pushed to two meanings (as also abstract).
There is no addition of meanings to suffix ות nor ת. It just another style of spelling (full and short).
ְAnyway, as I said, I am not against you. But for me, to follow something, I need to see a system. And if you, the one who raised that claim, cannot show a system that will support that, then I have nothing to follow after.

As for Psalms 22...
Even though I didn't want to go into it, I'll say a few words.
I have no doubt that some old scripts wrote this word with a W at the end.
But I still say that the original script was with a Y - כארי.
Since this part of the verse without a verb seems problematic in the matter of syntax, through times, it was changed from כארי to כארו creating a rare form of a verb which has no real meaning in that context.
People had to choose between a syntax problem and between a context and grammar problem, and they chose the latter.
A verb like כארו can be an unusual form of כור (which also doesn't act as a verb), and it can be from a theoretical root כאר (with a consonantal Aleph).

Usually, when I speak about it, I show a few things:
1. Explanations about the verb form and the problem with that (even though we can "stretch" it to be acceptable).
2. Debunking the "Digging" meaning (as pierce) and the other one as well.
3. Leave an opening to still read it as a verb with another meaning (which is kinda weak, but I do it for those who insist to see it as a verb (instead of seeing it as a misspelling of כארי).
4. Show why כארי spelling is the right one. And it is shown by many factors inside this chapter that leave no doubt for the intention of the original writer.

If you please, I am interested in your reading since you agree with me about the impossible "digging" translation.
How do you translate the so-called verb כארו? (maybe it is the same way that I see it when I leave the "opening" to read it as a verb).

As for the Masoretic people...
You (and probably others) tend to see them as a group of people with good intentions that one day raised from their sofa and started to deal with the text.
But the Masoretic people are actually a school that goes on from generation to generation which the "Masora" (as the right way to read a text) is mentioned already in the Mishna.
They were a group of people that their "Job" was to remember the text.
And the fact that the arguments between a few Masora schools were so tiny, say something about the more than 90% agreements.
And by the way, going back to the Psalm case... Ask yourself why did they vowel the word אספר (count) as Pi'el and not Qal.
It always comes as Qal, but for "some reason" they voweled it as a Pi'el. Do you think they didn't know that ספר as "count" comes only as Qal? Or maybe they knew something about this Psalm reading and therefore they voweled that verb in the unusual form? (by the way, it has something with the כארי reading, and also with another pun case).
You just don't know what Masora is. I'm sorry to tell you.
You think they just came down from nowhere, looked at the text and said: "Okay, what do we have here?"
And like I said in another comment, the vowels of the text don't represent an old Biblical pronunciation, but they represent a pronunciation from the late Biblical era more or less.

As for challenging my Hebrew knowledge...
This is getting ridiculous, I advise you to talk about what you see, instead of making it personal.
But if you do want to make it personal, I have no problem.
I can give you a text written in a Biblical Hebrew, No vowels (the way you like it), and you can translate it for me and show me how you really can read Biblical Hebrew text without the help of translations.
I'm not saying that you can't. It is easier than to read the Bible itself.
But if you really have confidence in your knowledge of Biblical Hebrew, just say YES, and I'll give you a few hours to translate a small part (Not a s hard one).
What do you say?

Hello

Ex. 3:13
אֱלֹהֵי אֲבוֹתֵיכֶם שְׁלָחַנִי אֲלֵיכֶם
Ex. 3:15
אֱלֹהֵי אֲבֹתֵיכֶם... שְׁלָחַנִי אֲלֵיכֶם

Ex. 10:6 - אבתיך ואבות אבתיך

same verse exactly with the same idea אבות//אבת
ָEx. 20:4 - פֹּקֵד עֲוֺן אָבֹת עַל בָּנִים
Ex. 34:7; Num. 14:18; Deut 5:8 - פֹּקֵד עֲוֺן אָבוֹת עַל בָּנִים

the form of בית אבתיו appears many times
But also בית אבותיו
How can it say anything else?

1Sam 18:8 - אבתיכם and אבותיכם in the same verse for same people
וַיִּזְעֲקוּ אֲבוֹתֵיכֶם אֶל י״י וַיִּשְׁלַח י״י אֶת מֹשֶׁה וְאֶת אַהֲרֹן וַיּוֹצִיאוּ אֶת אֲבֹתֵיכֶם מִמִּצְרַיִם וַיֹּשִׁבוּם בַּמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה

I tried to see it your way.
And I understand what you're saying because there are many places which the form without the W can relate to the abstract term of fathers.
But...
I saw exactly the opposite as well. Which the ות suffix relates to the abstract term and the ת suffix relates to the physical fathers.

It is too much of a scramble to make a claim like that.

The simple way is just to take a pen and a paper and write all of the occurrences in a tablet.
If it fits your claim - then it fits.
and if it doesn't (like my suspicions say) - then it doesn't.

ducky wrote:Hello Karl,

*It is hard for me to believe that your problem with reading Aramaic is just the vocabulary. the grammar and verb-system are different from Hebrew. But still, If you say so...

I didn’t say “my only problem” rather “my main problem”. Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic shared very similar grammars. There are a few quirks of differences, but for the most part the same.

ducky wrote:*The study is Aramism is based on the post-exile biblical texts, so I don't know why you said that it was archaized. Because it is not.

This sentence doesn’t make sense.

ducky wrote:*The shift was from Long "a" to "o"...
I wrote O-->A because that is what YOU wrote in your comment, so I commented according to you.
The Canaanic Shift is a known conclusive thing. You shouldn't say there is no evidence if you didn't study this case.
I also see that you look at the Hebrew language as if it is not connected to any other language. But it is.

The writing of the vowels was not done until centuries after Biblical Hebrew ceased to be a natively spoken language. Therefore you have no evidence as to the correct pronunciation of Biblical Hebrew. Without that evidence you cannot say for certain any vowel shift, either to or from Biblical Hebrew.

ducky wrote:As for אבת/אבות
I'm not going to look them up.
If you can prove the difference between the suffix ת and ות then you should look at any noun. Not just the one that can be pushed to two meanings (as also abstract).
There is no addition of meanings to suffix ות nor ת. It just another style of spelling (full and short).
ְAnyway, as I said, I am not against you. But for me, to follow something, I need to see a system. And if you, the one who raised that claim, cannot show a system that will support that, then I have nothing to follow after.

You should not condemn what you don’t know. I presently am working on a project where I am looking at many nouns, not just אבת - אבות. That project is still in its initial phases, so I won’t comment on it further.

ducky wrote:As for Psalms 22...
Even though I didn't want to go into it, I'll say a few words.
I have no doubt that some old scripts wrote this word with a W at the end.
But I still say that the original script was with a Y - כארי.
Since this part of the verse without a verb seems problematic in the matter of syntax, through times, it was changed from כארי to כארו creating a rare form of a verb which has no real meaning in that context.
People had to choose between a syntax problem and between a context and grammar problem, and they chose the latter.
A verb like כארו can be an unusual form of כור (which also doesn't act as a verb), and it can be from a theoretical root כאר (with a consonantal Aleph).

The verb כאר has a legitimate Hebrew meaning of “to deform as in to twist into unnatural shapes (used in Akkadian medical texts for diseases that deform hands and feet), distort ?? Ps 22:17 αλ” which has two derivative uses, as a gerund referring to an action “כאר deforming, as in writhing Is 38:13 αλ” and as a noun, the actor “כאר that which deforms, puts into unnatural shapes Am 8:8 αλ”.

ducky wrote: As for the Masoretic people...
You (and probably others) tend to see them as a group of people with good intentions that one day raised from their sofa and started to deal with the text.
But the Masoretic people are actually a school that goes on from generation to generation which the "Masora" (as the right way to read a text) is mentioned already in the Mishna.
They were a group of people that their "Job" was to remember the text.
And the fact that the arguments between a few Masora schools were so tiny, say something about the more than 90% agreements.
…
You just don't know what Masora is. I'm sorry to tell you.
You think they just came down from nowhere, looked at the text and said: "Okay, what do we have here?"
And like I said in another comment, the vowels of the text don't represent an old Biblical pronunciation, but they represent a pronunciation from the late Biblical era more or less.

This is funny.

The Masoretes had three counts against them:
1) their native tongue was medieval Aramaic, which was significantly different from Biblical Aramaic
2) the Hebrew that they knew was Tiberian Hebrew, a medieval version of Hebrew that has a different grammar and many words have different meanings from Biblical Hebrew. Of course, the pronunciations were Tiberian, not Biblical.
3) the medieval rabbis had adopted the Greek manner of thinking and philosophizing.

ducky wrote:As for challenging my Hebrew knowledge...
This is getting ridiculous, I advise you to talk about what you see, instead of making it personal.
But if you do want to make it personal, I have no problem.
I can give you a text written in a Biblical Hebrew, No vowels (the way you like it), and you can translate it for me and show me how you really can read Biblical Hebrew text without the help of translations.
I'm not saying that you can't. It is easier than to read the Bible itself.
But if you really have confidence in your knowledge of Biblical Hebrew, just say YES, and I'll give you a few hours to translate a small part (Not a s hard one).
What do you say?

I didn’t challenge your Hebrew knowledge, rather question those from whom you learned Hebrew. You mentioned that you studied at an Ulpan (I wanted to do that, but never had the chance). OK, that means that you know modern Israeli Hebrew. Do you know by how much modern Israeli Hebrew differs from Biblical Hebrew? We had one guy get on this forum, a person who runs an Ulpan in Israel and who claims to teach Biblical Hebrew, who made the claim that if Elijah were to return tomorrow and sit in a café in Tel Aviv, that Elijah would have no trouble understanding the conversations around him. Do you make the same claim? That guy actually had read Tanakh through twice, yet still made several mistakes concerning Biblical Hebrew while on this forum.

You sound like someone who has learned a lot about Biblical Hebrew by reading what others have written about Biblical Hebrew. But how much have you studied Biblical Hebrew itself? In other words, have you read Tanakh itself through, cover to cover? If so, how many times? If not, are you sure that those whose writings you have read, knew what they were talking about?

As far as you sending me something to translate in “Biblical Hebrew”, unless you send me a passage from Tanakh itself, it most likely won’t be Biblical Hebrew. Tiberian Hebrew, maybe, but I’d be very surprised if it’s Biblical Hebrew.

Karl W. Randolph.

David Hunter writes

there are many places which the form without the W can relate to the abstract term of fathers.

1. I don't think there is an abstract "fatherhood", אֲבְהוּת, in the HB, nor "motherhood". Tell me if I am wrong.
2. I can not relate to anything about "Akkadian", as I know nothing about it. I think we should better remain with what we know first hand.
3. There are members here who tell us repeatedly what different languages "modern" Hebrew and "biblical" Hebrew are. I suspect that they know (very very) little about spoken Hebrew. So take their words with a couple of salt grains.
4. There are members here who claim to read the תנ"ך without the niqud vowels. This is certainly impossible. I think they have read the תנ"ך before with the traditional vowels, and now they keep inventing their own niqud.
5. Keep in mind that statements such as: "the Hebrew that they (the "Masoretes") knew was Tiberian Hebrew, a medieval version of Hebrew that has a different grammar and many words have different meanings from Biblical Hebrew. Of course, the pronunciations were Tiberian, not Biblical" are historical fiction, figments of the imagination, with no basis whatsoever in any reality. There was never any "Tiberian Hebrew".
6. I read carefully what you write and I like it. Keep writing.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

Hello Karl.
Sorry if it is quite long.

I didn't study in Ulpan, It is my native language.
I started to read when I was 5-6yo and my first text was a Biblical text. I mean that I studied how to read using the bible. (that is how they taught me).
And of course, I keep on studying, using traditional books and academic books.

For some reason, some people who don't speak Modern Hebrew or even know it, know everything about it and how much it is a difference and how much it is similar. quite amazing.

The Modern Hebrew is indeed not the biblical Hebrew, but it is, like every language, part of its evolution.
If Isaiah would come today, He wouldn't understand a lot at first, but soon enough, he would understand it all. because the basic grammatical patterns are the same.
(the main difference is in the syntax, which also easily to "catch" since in the Modern Hebrew, since the Mishnaic Hebrew, is more simple).
Any modern average man can read the Bible easily (and I'm talking about the classic Biblical Hebrew, as the prose) (while Poetry style is harder, as any poetry is, from any language and in any time).

As for כאר
You said it is "deform". Can you give a link to the entry of the Akkadian dictionary you saw it?
(I have another way to read it as a verb, even though I am positive it is כארי originally).

You gave an example from Amos 8:8
ואבל כל יושב בה ועלתה כאר כלה ונגרשה ונשקעב כיאור מצרים
Well, I wonder how is it, that after you read the Bible from cover to cover for a thousand times, you didn't notice that the same verse repeats itself in Amos 9:5
ואבלו כל יושבי בה ועלתה כיאר כלה ושקעה כיאר מצרים
Maybe you should read it one more time.

ְAs for Isaiah, I even can't understand you.
Can you translate these two verses (Amos and Isaiah) to an English sentence instead of defining the word?

As for the "Hebrew challenge"...
For some reason, every time I speak to a (quite arrogant) guy that think he excels in Biblical Hebrew and I offer him a challenge to read Biblical Hebrew text that is not found in the Bible, suddenly he starts with excuses.
I don't get it. If one knows how to read the Bible, why couldn't he read another text that uses the exact same Biblical style (grammar, syntax, vocabulary)? He should think about it as an ancient script that was found today. What's the problem?
something like:
וילך מתן מאת עירא שמח וטוב לב ולא אחר לעשות ככל אשר שאל עירא ממנו
Do you want to tell me that it is not Biblical?
(and Matan departed from Ira happy and glad (good-hearted), and didn't wait/delayed to do whatever Ira asked him).
Simple, right?
But I really don't want to make someone uncomfortable, So of course, I won't push it.
But just think about your real confidence in Hebrew.

About Aramaic and Masora, and Tiberian...
You throw a lot of "points", but according to what you write, I don't think you really know what Tiberian means and so on...
Do you realize that when one says Tiberian, it is only about grammar but not pronunciation?
No one pronounces in the Tiberian way but only use their grammar. (not even you, when you read it according to their pointings-marks).
(please don't be that guy who reads in Wikipedia and thinks he understands the whole world)

You also talk about the Masoretic, and I don't get it. If you claim that their grammar is artificial, then why do you even use it? Who said that there is Qal, Pi'el and so on. maybe it is all an invention by the Masoretic people that didn't know Biblical Hebrew at all (only you know).

And if you think they didn't know Biblical Hebrew, then I don't know what to tell you.
More than that... I can tell you that the Enclitic M that was discovered by the modern scholars as a new finding (thanks to the Ugarit) was already written in the Jewish books 1,000 years ago.
So I think we shouldn't disrespect them so much (maybe just a little).

By the way, what is YOUR native tongue? Not even Semitic, right?
So according to your view, we don't even need to listen to you.

And I have to say it for the third time. The grammar of the Tiberian doesn't claim to be the grammar of Moses. but it does represent the Grammar of the Hebrew people as it has evolved since the late-biblical era.

If you want to focus on Ancient pronunciation, No problem. We can talk about it also.
But then you should realize that there is no "E" sound, no "O" sound, no "Tiberian Qamats and Segol" sounds. and a lot more of forms that weren't pronounced as the Tiberian grammar vowels them.

We can talk about the ancient pronunciation if you want to focus on that.
But you can't play that game from two sides. As one side is to accept a lot of forms the way that MT writes them (and just argue about the MT's vowels), and on the other side is to push toward the ancient pronunciation.
You need to choose your way.

When we look at the Bible in the way that it is voweled, there is no problem if one argues about the way that a certain word should have been voweled, but when he does it, he actually agrees with the Masoretic system of grammar, and he just argues about a certain word using their system.

That is why I can't understand you.
because you are confusing yourself

I'll give you an example.
Check 1Sam 4:19.
It writes ללת (voweled as "lalat").
This form actually represents the old pronunciation of the known word ללדת (voweled as "laledet").
Because "laledet" original form was "laladt".
and in this case, the D was loosen because of the next letter T.
creating: "laladt"-->lalat" ללדת-->ללת.

When the MT saw a form like ללדת they always voweled it as "laledet"
Why?
because this is how the form "qatl" was evolved (to "qetel") since the late-biblical era.

But when the Masoretic faced the rare case of ללת without the D, they had no choice but to vowel it according to the old form ***That Was Known To Them***.
(and you can find this verb ילדת also in that vowels).

So to say they didn't know the old pronunciation is just not to realize what you're reading.

Hello Isaac and thanks.

Even though I was arguing with you about your method, I still like to read your links between roots, and surely you have a bright mind.

As for "fathers" as abstract, I wrote it like that because I understand his words as differing between close biological fathers (as father and grandfather and so on), and between "fathers" (as fathers of the nation) or the old fathers from longer generations.

As for the case of Modern, I tried answering that without getting all into it. And surely I was not going to try explaining it deeper.

As for the explanations about the "Tiberian" and Masora and so on..
I agree with you. People tend to read all kind of "pure" facts but can't really understand what is Masora, How Many Masoras are there. (not all Tiberian of course) and so on.
But also here, I'd rather no to get into it.
I'm used to it that a lot of Biblical Hebrew students think they are the greatest in the world right now and allow themselves disrespecting the Masoretic people, as if they "fixed" the Bible, and also "don't really know Hebrew".
But what can I do?

As for reading the Bible without vowels...
It can be done, and sometimes if you don't "hit" the right vowel according to the MT, you still get it right (in general).
Sometimes the same word can be read in two or three different ways and have the same meaning.
And the reader who reads without vowels may read it in the right sense and in a right grammar, but he didn't know that the MT voweled it in another way which also has the sense.
So the test of "right reading" would be only if he can get it right, and not specifically about the MT specific voweled word.

The Tiberian was also a spoken accent, but it didn't last. and most of the people who had another accent adapted the Tiberian Masora but kept reading it according to their own accent. So the Grammar remained Tiberian but the pronunciation remained their own.

And of course, also in the ancient times (and Biblical time), there were more than one accents. and it is shown in the Bible text also.

And by the way, I don' disrespect anyone who devotes himself into studying. whether I agree with him or not.

Greenspahn, F. (2003). An Introduction to Aramaic (2nd ed.). Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature.

Page 19:

(1) The Canaanite Shift (ā > ō) — long a usually became long o (ō) in some Northwest Semitic languages, including Hebrew. However, Aramaic belongs to a non-Canaanite group of languages, in which the original vowel (ā) is retained. A familiar example is the Hebrew word שָׁלוֹם. Both vowels in this word were once pronounced a, but the second one was long (the Arabic word is salām). In the Canaanite branch that vowel became ō, but not in Aramaic where the word is, therefore, pronounced שְׁלָם.

Greenspahn goes on to provide the following examples:

אֱנָשׁ (Aramaic) to אֱנוֹשׁ (Hebrew)
דָּר (Aramaic) to דּוֹר (Hebrew)
טָב (Aramaic) to טוֹב (Hebrew)
לָא (Aramaic) to לֹא (Hebrew)
עָלַם (Aramaic) to עוֹלָם (Hebrew)
קָל (Aramaic) to קוֹל (Hebrew)

Karl: Would you pronounce vocalic ו as something other than o? I don't know anything about how you pronounce Hebrew. To me, it's clear that קל and קול differ in vowel class. Aramaic has always maintained the reading of qal, while Hebrew has qol.

David Hunter writes

The Tiberian was also a spoken accent, but it didn't last. and most of the people who had another accent adapted the Tiberian Masora but kept reading it according to their own accent. So the Grammar remained Tiberian but the pronunciation remained their own.

Where did you get all this? Is this talk about "The Tiberian was also a spoken accent, but it didn't last" based on historical facts, or are we but musing here?

Isaac Fried, Boston University

ducky wrote:Hello Karl.
Sorry if it is quote long.

I didn't study in Ulpan, It is my native language.

Sorry. I noticed that someone said that he learned Hebrew at an Ulpan, I see I misidentified it as you.

ducky wrote:I started to read when I was 5-6yo and my first text was a Biblical text. I mean that I studied how to read using the bible. (that is how they taught me).
And of course, I keep on studying, using traditional books and academic books.

For some reason, some people who don't speak Modern Hebrew or even know it, know everything about it and how much it is a difference and how much it is similar. quite amazing.

If you asked me, instead of just assuming, I would have said that I know very little modern Israeli Hebrew. I’ve read certain things about modern Israeli Hebrew, including its basic grammar, enough to know that its grammar is significantly different from that of Biblical Hebrew. Now I think that not knowing modern Israeli Hebrew is an advantage, in that my understanding of Biblical Hebrew is not corrupted by cross-fertilization from modern Israeli Hebrew. I cannot read modern Israeli Hebrew. Modern Israeli Hebrew is a strange, unknown language to me, harder to read and understand than Yiddish (and I never studied Yiddish).

ducky wrote:The Modern Hebrew is indeed not the biblical Hebrew, but it is, like every language, part of its evolution.
If Isaiah would come today, He wouldn't understand a lot at first, but soon enough, he would understand it all. because the basic grammatical patterns are the same.

Definitely not for the verbs, and how much other has changed as well?

ducky wrote:(the main difference is in the syntax, which also easily to "catch" since in the Modern Hebrew, since the Mishnaic Hebrew, is more simple).
Any modern average man can read the Bible easily (and I'm talking about the classic Biblical Hebrew, as the prose) (while Poetry style is harder, as any poetry is, from any language and in any time).

I’ve been told otherwise by Israelis, including well-educated Israelis. They may be able to read it, but understanding it is a different matter. That’s why there is now a translation of Tanakh into modern, Israeli Hebrew.

ducky wrote:As for כאר
You said it is "deform". Can you give a link to the entry of the Akkadian dictionary you saw it?
(I have another way to read it as a verb, even though I am positive it is כארי originally).

I learned the Akkadian meaning on line here from another member of this forum. That was several years ago, and I don’t remember who that was.

ducky wrote:You gave an example from Amos 8:8
ואבל כל יושב בה ועלתה כאר כלה ונגרשה ונשקעב כיאור מצרים
Well, I wonder how is it, that after you read the Bible from cover to cover for a thousand times, you didn't notice that the same verse repeats itself in Amos 9:5
ואבלו כל יושבי בה ועלתה כיאר כלה ושקעה כיאר מצרים
Maybe you should read it one more time.

ְAs for Isaiah, I even can't understand you.
Can you translate these two verses (Amos and Isaiah) to an English sentence instead of defining the word?

Isaiah 38:13 “Until the morning I likened my writhing (twisting my body out of shape) such that it should shatter all my bones (in other words, he was very violent in his actions), from day to night you cause me to be whole”

Amos 8:8 העל זאת לא תרגז הארץ ואבל כל יושב בה ועלתה כאר כלה ונגרשה ונשקה כיאר מצרים (you misquoted the verse)
Is it not for this reason that the land should shudder and all that settle in it mourn, that injustice is that which distorts all of it, that it be driven out (pushed away) and is gone out as Egypt’s Nile.

ducky wrote:As for the "Hebrew challenge"...
For some reason, every time I speak to a (quite arrogant) guy that think he excels in Biblical Hebrew and I offer him a challenge to read Biblical Hebrew text that is not found in the Bible, suddenly he starts with excuses.
I don't get it. If one knows how to read the Bible, why couldn't he read another text that uses the exact same Biblical style (grammar, syntax, vocabulary)? He should think about it as an ancient script that was found today. What's the problem?

The problem is that I have seen plenty of examples of what was claimed to be Biblical Hebrew, but were nothing of the sort. After many times of seeing such examples, what is the usual reaction to such claims?

ducky wrote:something like:
וילך מתן מאת עירא שמח וטוב לב ולא אחר לעשות ככל אשר שאל עירא ממנו
Do you want to tell me that it is not Biblical?
(and Matan departed from Ira happy and glad (good-hearted), and didn't wait/delayed to do whatever Ira asked him).

Close, but no cigar. It’s not Biblical Hebrew. To change your sentence as little as possible yet to make it more like Biblical Hebrew, consider the following:
וילך מתן מאת עירא שמח וטוב לב ולא אחר לעשות ככל הדבר אשר שאלו עירא
Do you see how Biblical Hebrew differs from what you wrote? Subtle difference that someone whose native tongue is modern Israeli Hebrew may not notice. But even this is not really good Biblical Hebrew.
A further distinction, the verb שאל usually refers to asking for something to be given in return, whether an answer or an object. When one asked another to do something, usually the sentence is significantly different, e.g.:
וילך מתן שמח וטוב לב מאת עירא וימהר לעשות את הכל אשר התחנן לו עירא
or something similar. צוה is almost always used of a superior to an inferior, though sometimes used as a strong request, such as times that Jeremiah asked Baruch to do things for him. (The same thing is found in English, where often a request for an action is given in the form of a command.)

Your sentence is a perfect example of why I didn’t expect Biblical Hebrew from you and you didn’t dissappoint.

ducky wrote:Simple, right?
But I really don't want to make someone uncomfortable, So of course, I won't push it.
But just think about your real confidence in Hebrew.

What about your confidence in Biblical Hebrew?

ducky wrote:About Aramaic and Masora, and Tiberian...
You throw a lot of "points", but according to what you write, I don't think you really know what Tiberian means and so on...
Do you realize that when one says Tiberian, it is only about grammar but not pronunciation?

The Tiberians are most remembered for their pronunciations. Therefore, that must be included.

ducky wrote:No one pronounces in the Tiberian way but only use their grammar. (not even you, when you read it according to their pointings-marks).
(please don't be that guy who reads in Wikipedia and thinks he understands the whole world)

Wikipedia? Are you kidding? You can’t be serious.

ducky wrote:You also talk about the Masoretic, and I don't get it. If you claim that their grammar is artificial, then why do you even use it?

I don’t use their grammar.

ducky wrote:Who said that there is Qal, Pi'el and so on. maybe it is all an invention by the Masoretic people that didn't know Biblical Hebrew at all (only you know).

The binyamin predate the Masoretes. They are found in the consonantal text.

ducky wrote:And if you think they didn't know Biblical Hebrew, then I don't know what to tell you.

The evidence is in their points, that they didn’t realize that Biblical Hebrew differed from the Tiberian Hebrew that they knew.

ducky wrote:More than that... I can tell you that the Enclitic M that was discovered by the modern scholars as a new finding (thanks to the Ugarit) was already written in the Jewish books 1,000 years ago.
So I think we shouldn't disrespect them so much (maybe just a little).

By the way, what is YOUR native tongue? Not even Semitic, right?

Thankfully not Semitic, that way my understanding of Biblical Hebrew is not corrupted by having to deal with a cognate language.

ducky wrote:So according to your view, we don't even need to listen to you.

Hey, don’t twist my words into something that I didn’t say.

ducky wrote:And I have to say it for the third time. The grammar of the Tiberian doesn't claim to be the grammar of Moses. but it does represent the Grammar of the Hebrew people as it has evolved since the late-biblical era.

“Post-Biblical” is the operative term. But this forum was designated for the study of Biblical Hebrew, not post-Biblical Hebrew.

ducky wrote:If you want to focus on Ancient pronunciation, No problem. We can talk about it also.
But then you should realize that there is no "E" sound, no "O" sound, no "Tiberian Qamats and Segol" sounds. and a lot more of forms that weren't pronounced as the Tiberian grammar vowels them.

There was a city that as late as 2000 years ago in backwards Galilee was still pronounced as “Yerosoluma”. That gives a clue that the original pronunciation of that city was probably “Yerewosoluma”.

ducky wrote:We can talk about the ancient pronunciation if you want to focus on that.
But you can't play that game from two sides. As one side is to accept a lot of forms the way that MT writes them (and just argue about the MT's vowels), and on the other side is to push toward the ancient pronunciation.
You need to choose your way.

If you had been reading what I write, you would know that I push no pronunciation. Instead I keep writing that the Biblical pronunciation has been irretrievably lost. Therefore I can’t push a pronunciation, even if I wanted to.

ducky wrote:When we look at the Bible in the way that it is voweled, there is no problem if one argues about the way that a certain word should have been voweled, but when he does it, he actually agrees with the Masoretic system of grammar, and he just argues about a certain word using their system.

When we look at the contexts, it becomes obvious that some of the words have the wrong vowels. The wrong vowels even according to the Masoretic system of pronunciations.

ducky wrote:That is why I can't understand you.
because you are confusing yourself

Is it that you don’t understand me because you don’t want to understand me?

ducky wrote:I'll give you an example.
Check 1Sam 4:19.
It writes ללת (voweled as "lalat").
This form actually represents the old pronunciation of the known word ללדת (voweled as "laledet").
Because "laledet" original form was "laladt".
and in this case, the D was loosen because of the next letter T.
creating: "laladt"-->lalat" ללדת-->ללת.

This is speculation without evidence.

ducky wrote:When the MT saw a form like ללדת they always voweled it as "laledet"
Why?
because this is how the form "qatl" was evolved (to "qetel") since the late-biblical era.

But when the Masoretic faced the rare case of ללת without the D, they had no choice but to vowel it according to the old form ***That Was Known To Them***.
(and you can find this verb ילדת also in that vowels).

So to say they didn't know the old pronunciation is just not to realize what you're reading.

Do you really believe that an ancient pronunciation without being written down was preserved by people whose native languages were different over a period of a millennium?

Even with a pool of native speakers of a language, pronunciations change. They change more slowly if the pronunciations are written down and the people are literate, but they still change. Yet you expect me to believe that a language where the pronunciations were not written down was able to preserve its pronunciations for over a thousand years after the last native speaker died until some other non-native speakers invented a way to indicate those missing vowels? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

I asked you how many times you have read Tanakh cover to cover, all the way through. You haven’t answered that question. Am I correct to assume that your silence is an answer, namely that you haven’t done so even once?

Karl W. Randolph.

kwrandolph wrote:

ducky wrote:something like:
וילך מתן מאת עירא שמח וטוב לב ולא אחר לעשות ככל אשר שאל עירא ממנו
Do you want to tell me that it is not Biblical?
(and Matan departed from Ira happy and glad (good-hearted), and didn't wait/delayed to do whatever Ira asked him).

Close, but no cigar. It’s not Biblical Hebrew. To change your sentence as little as possible yet to make it more like Biblical Hebrew, consider the following:
וילך מתן מאת עירא שמח וטוב לב ולא אחר לעשות ככל הדבר אשר שאלו עירא
Do you see how Biblical Hebrew differs from what you wrote? A subtle difference that someone whose native tongue is Modern Israeli Hebrew may not notice. But even this is not really good Biblical Hebrew.

Hello Karl, I edit this post because I want to be more respectful to you and I hope you would do the same.

I see that you fixed ככל אשר to ככל הדבר אשר.
And you said that ככל אשר is not biblical?
But it is.
Examples:
Gen 6:22 - ויעש נח ככל אשר צוה אתו
Deut. 18:16 - ככל אשר שאלת מעם ה אלהיך

This combination appears more than 70 times, While the combination you suggested appears only once.
So there is no need for that, and I don't know why you changed it.

I also see that you fixed the שאל-ממנו to שאלו
and you said that שאל-מן is not Biblical.
But it is.

The verb שאל has a few meanings. One of them is to "ask something" or "request".
And not only asking something to return it later.
You can ask for slaves
and you can ask for something to do.
For example:
Lame 4:4 - עוללים שאלו לחם
or
Judges 5:25 - מים שאל חלב נתנה
These examples are just about "request"
2Kings 2:9 - שאל מה אעשה לך
A request for something to do. (give, do, or whatever)

As for the combination of שאל-מן
It appears in the Bible.
When it comes to ממני/ממנו/ממך and so on, here are examples:
*Psalms 2:8 - שאל ממני ואתנה גוים נחלתך
Ask me, and I will give...
*Psalms 21:5 - חיים שאל ממך
He asked you for life.
*Ezra 8:22 - כי בשתי לשאול מן המלך חיל ופרשים לעזרנו
I was ashamed to ask the king for...

And anyway, once a man reads the Bible, he should observe the case of שאל+מ
because this combination alone represents a request, never mind the form.
שאל מעמו
שאל מאתו
שאל מן
or just
שאל מ

So never mind how subtle you see things, it should still be understood very well as Biblical (which it is) even if, by the way, it is not even in the Bible.

For example,
Even if I would write שאל מלפניו.
it is not a combination from the Bible. But it doesn't even matter.
The שאל is Biblical.
And the מלפניו is Biblical.
So anyone who reads the Bible can understand what this combination means.
We don't need to search the exact combination. It is enough that the words are biblical, and the understanding is made by the man who understands the Biblical words.

Or another example.
If I would write the word בתיה (her houses)
It doesn't appear in the Bible.
But a man who reads the Bible has no problem to read it.
Because the word בית is biblical and the form is biblical.
and the link between the noun and the form is made automatically by those who understand Biblical Hebrew.

And the one who says: "This exact word doesn't appear in the Bible, and so, it is not biblical."
He doesn't really know how to read Biblical Hebrew, but only through a lexicon.
And that is what I think you do (with respect). You tend to look at the Biblical Hebrew through a lexicon which you don't allow yourself to connect two biblical words together if they are not connected already.
But a Biblical reader, who reads it naturally, doesn't have a problem to understand (or to create) any combination he likes while keeping the biblical meaning alive.

Anyway, I won't push you to take that challenge.
If you want, just tell me.
And from an objective perspective, I have to say that you have nothing to lose.
ּIt is a win-win situation.
If you can translate that, which I think you can, you prove to me (and to yourself) that you are what you say you are.
And if the text is not Biblical, you can even prove higher abilities by recognizing the errors and even to correct them.

To tell the truth, and I 'm still saying that with respect, I think you chose to avoid the challenge from lack of confidence. Because it is a silly excuse to say: "I found a subtle mistake, and so I cancel the whole deal".
(which there is no mistake, by the way).
But even if it is a mistake, your own self referred to it as subtle.
Is this an excuse to cancel everything? because of 0.001% that you see it wrong?
And more than that, you even read it in the way it was meant to be read.
So I don't see the problem you have.

If you want, you can even send me your own Biblical text that you would write, and I would translate that.
And then I'll send you mine.

I said before that I won't push you, and I know I kinda do.
But I do it only because you're interesting, and I really like to see it.
Not really as a challenge, but just from pure interest.