Re: Genesis 6:1 "born"
Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2020 8:57 pm
Hello everyone,
sorry for the long post.
I think that Karl tries to ignore the evolution and seek for the "right" old way of pronuciation in the biblical era, and it is a fair thought.
But that raises the question of when.
We can assume that Malachi didn't speak as Ezekiel, and Ezekiel didn't speak as Samuel, and Samuel didn't speak as Moses, and Moses didn't speak as Jacob.
And also, even at the same era, there were more than one pronuncaition according to the place of the speaker.
The northen Hebrews had a different dialect than the southern Hebrews.
And there were more dialects than one.
So where do we find the "right Hebrew"?
The research can understand the Semitic archaic way of pronunciation of words according to the pattern and the relation of the pattern in other close languages. And it is not suppose to be hard to take a Hebrew word and take it "backwards" each time one step, to get to the old pronunciation.
The MT relates to the pronunciation of the later Biblical era, or even post Biblical era.
And when I say MT, there were a few: Tiberian, Israeli, and Babylonian.
Each one had changes according to the dialect that was spoken.
If we just look at the vowels, then the Tiberian had 7 vowels, the Babylonian had 6 vowels, and the Israeli had 5 vowels.
As we see, the Israeli' one's pronunciation was the one that was more popular, and that is the amounts of vowels in the modern Hebrew.
(as we see the pronunciation of Qamats=Patah'. and Segol=Tsere).
Because The Tiberian pronunciation was never "popular", But its grammar was. and its grammar was the one that took the lead, while its pronunciation wasn't.
The Yemenite, by the way, used the Babylonian MT, and if one would listen to a yemenite reading of the Bible, it would be a different vowels, up to the point that a native Hebrew speaker will find it hard to understand what he hears.
Is it less Hebrew?
All of those dialect are old, and it is shown in the handscripts of the Mishna, and also of the Talmud, which there are a few handwritings with different dialects.
Sometime the different dialects are seen only by the vowels. And sometimes they are seen in the words itself (as they are written differently).
And research found support for each one of the "strange" style that it was a valid one.
So what is the "right" dialect - it is a funny question.
Sometimes, in the Tiberian MT that we use, we can see strange forms. But then these forms are seen also in one of the Dialect of the Mishna.
So a lot of the "strange" forms just represented another "style"
***********
By the way, about the Mishna.
the first modern scholars thought that the Mishnaic Hebrew was an artificial language that was used only for the written texts.
But later it was proven that not only it is not artificial, it was clearly a natural tongue.
and it was an old dialect that lived along the biblical one.
some say from the second temple era, and others say that it was older (i think so too).
The Mishnaic Hebrew sometimes uses forms that are more archaic than the biblical ones. For example, the Bible used the verb עשתה=as.ta=(she did).
The Mishna write עשת=asat. And that is the archaic form of the verb.
Also, the Bible writes זאת=zot. The Mishna writes זו=zo. Again, it is more archaic form.
****
About the Qal Passive vs. Niphal
conjugations have two forms - active and passive.
Piel and Pual are the active and the passive of the same conjugation
Hiphil and Hophal
Pa'al (qal) and Pual
it is what it is.
If you see the word טרף=toraph
and you know that there is no Piel active but actually a Qal active, then you know that the Toraph represent the passive of the Qal.
Niphal is basically not passive (and not active). It is reflexive and/or mutual.
Later on, it replaced the passive qal that was no longer used.
Check the root שטף=wash
it comes only in Qal
In Levi it comes three times:
Levi 15:11
שָׁטַף בַּמָּיִם
Here is a regular Qal (no problem with that).
And in Levi 6:21
וְשֻׁטַּף בַּמָּיִם
it seems like Pual, but it is a passive qal - fitting all of the other Qal forms of the roots.
And then, you see in Levi 15:12
יִשָּׁטֵף בַּמָּיִם
Here it seems as if it is Niphal - as the passive of Qal, and even the MT voweled it as Niphal.
But it is actually (or probably) a Passive Qal - as "yushtaph" (instead of "yishateph")
The Mt voweled it like that because they tried to avoid the passive qal when they could, and since the Niphal replaced the passive Qal, they voweled it as Niphal.
******
About Isaac perspective on the Dagesh...
He actually has a point
I also think that a lot of the Dagesh are part of the evolution whcih is hard for me to believe that those were pronounced in the very old era of Hebrew.
And this view bring us back to the beginning of this long post - the evolution, and where do we start.
********************************
Anyway, The MT is what we have, and sometimes, the MT also writes according to the old forms.
For example:
The feminine participle of Qal from root ילד is יֹלֶדֶת=yoledet
But we can see in Gen. 16:11 יֹלַדְתְּ=yoladt
That is the old Hebrew form.
We can see that also in Jer. 22:23
ישבת and מקננת
they are both voweled accordng to the archaic way.
(the Qetiv also uses the archaic suffix).
Also we can see that the MT keeps it according to the tradition.
The prefix ש=sh is known to be voweled with Segol (pronounced: she)
But the old vowel was "a" (sha).
And so, in the song of Deborah, this prefix is voweled "sha"
But in the late books, the same prefix is voweled as "she"
sorry for the long post.
I think that Karl tries to ignore the evolution and seek for the "right" old way of pronuciation in the biblical era, and it is a fair thought.
But that raises the question of when.
We can assume that Malachi didn't speak as Ezekiel, and Ezekiel didn't speak as Samuel, and Samuel didn't speak as Moses, and Moses didn't speak as Jacob.
And also, even at the same era, there were more than one pronuncaition according to the place of the speaker.
The northen Hebrews had a different dialect than the southern Hebrews.
And there were more dialects than one.
So where do we find the "right Hebrew"?
The research can understand the Semitic archaic way of pronunciation of words according to the pattern and the relation of the pattern in other close languages. And it is not suppose to be hard to take a Hebrew word and take it "backwards" each time one step, to get to the old pronunciation.
The MT relates to the pronunciation of the later Biblical era, or even post Biblical era.
And when I say MT, there were a few: Tiberian, Israeli, and Babylonian.
Each one had changes according to the dialect that was spoken.
If we just look at the vowels, then the Tiberian had 7 vowels, the Babylonian had 6 vowels, and the Israeli had 5 vowels.
As we see, the Israeli' one's pronunciation was the one that was more popular, and that is the amounts of vowels in the modern Hebrew.
(as we see the pronunciation of Qamats=Patah'. and Segol=Tsere).
Because The Tiberian pronunciation was never "popular", But its grammar was. and its grammar was the one that took the lead, while its pronunciation wasn't.
The Yemenite, by the way, used the Babylonian MT, and if one would listen to a yemenite reading of the Bible, it would be a different vowels, up to the point that a native Hebrew speaker will find it hard to understand what he hears.
Is it less Hebrew?
All of those dialect are old, and it is shown in the handscripts of the Mishna, and also of the Talmud, which there are a few handwritings with different dialects.
Sometime the different dialects are seen only by the vowels. And sometimes they are seen in the words itself (as they are written differently).
And research found support for each one of the "strange" style that it was a valid one.
So what is the "right" dialect - it is a funny question.
Sometimes, in the Tiberian MT that we use, we can see strange forms. But then these forms are seen also in one of the Dialect of the Mishna.
So a lot of the "strange" forms just represented another "style"
***********
By the way, about the Mishna.
the first modern scholars thought that the Mishnaic Hebrew was an artificial language that was used only for the written texts.
But later it was proven that not only it is not artificial, it was clearly a natural tongue.
and it was an old dialect that lived along the biblical one.
some say from the second temple era, and others say that it was older (i think so too).
The Mishnaic Hebrew sometimes uses forms that are more archaic than the biblical ones. For example, the Bible used the verb עשתה=as.ta=(she did).
The Mishna write עשת=asat. And that is the archaic form of the verb.
Also, the Bible writes זאת=zot. The Mishna writes זו=zo. Again, it is more archaic form.
****
About the Qal Passive vs. Niphal
conjugations have two forms - active and passive.
Piel and Pual are the active and the passive of the same conjugation
Hiphil and Hophal
Pa'al (qal) and Pual
it is what it is.
If you see the word טרף=toraph
and you know that there is no Piel active but actually a Qal active, then you know that the Toraph represent the passive of the Qal.
Niphal is basically not passive (and not active). It is reflexive and/or mutual.
Later on, it replaced the passive qal that was no longer used.
Check the root שטף=wash
it comes only in Qal
In Levi it comes three times:
Levi 15:11
שָׁטַף בַּמָּיִם
Here is a regular Qal (no problem with that).
And in Levi 6:21
וְשֻׁטַּף בַּמָּיִם
it seems like Pual, but it is a passive qal - fitting all of the other Qal forms of the roots.
And then, you see in Levi 15:12
יִשָּׁטֵף בַּמָּיִם
Here it seems as if it is Niphal - as the passive of Qal, and even the MT voweled it as Niphal.
But it is actually (or probably) a Passive Qal - as "yushtaph" (instead of "yishateph")
The Mt voweled it like that because they tried to avoid the passive qal when they could, and since the Niphal replaced the passive Qal, they voweled it as Niphal.
******
About Isaac perspective on the Dagesh...
He actually has a point
I also think that a lot of the Dagesh are part of the evolution whcih is hard for me to believe that those were pronounced in the very old era of Hebrew.
And this view bring us back to the beginning of this long post - the evolution, and where do we start.
********************************
Anyway, The MT is what we have, and sometimes, the MT also writes according to the old forms.
For example:
The feminine participle of Qal from root ילד is יֹלֶדֶת=yoledet
But we can see in Gen. 16:11 יֹלַדְתְּ=yoladt
That is the old Hebrew form.
We can see that also in Jer. 22:23
ישבת and מקננת
they are both voweled accordng to the archaic way.
(the Qetiv also uses the archaic suffix).
Also we can see that the MT keeps it according to the tradition.
The prefix ש=sh is known to be voweled with Segol (pronounced: she)
But the old vowel was "a" (sha).
And so, in the song of Deborah, this prefix is voweled "sha"
But in the late books, the same prefix is voweled as "she"