Just a tip of the iceberg for the work being done on diachrony and Biblical Hebrew:
http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/31/31-2/31-2-pp161-168_JETS.pdf
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.15699/jbl.1352.2016.2991?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
https://www.ibr-bbr.org/files/bbr/BBR_1994_10_Rooker-LateHebrew.pdf
https://oi.uchicago.edu/research/research-archives-library/dissertations/diachronic-development-biblical-hebrew-prepositions
https://ancienthebrewgrammar.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/bhdiachtypo-cook1.pdf
http://www.hum.huji.ac.il/upload/_FILE_1474291547.pdf
https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/divinity/rt/otp/abstracts/dialectology/
17 comments:
All well and good if you believe the premise of universal grammar.
As per the sheol discussion there are many straw man arguments out there that claim unprovable secondary roots to identical words based on LXX translation or MT vowels.
Just because the root does not fit with our way of thinking one cannot invent roots out of fresh air. Evidence would be required. Evidence that is so far, missing.
http://www.academia.edu/32754578/Reymond_2017_Verb_nsg_in_Second_Temple_Hebrew_ZAW_129_2017_19ff..pdf
In the academia.edu link you posted, the author (Reymond) seems to argue for semantic development over time for the verb "nsg." The piece appears to support a diachronic study of language although the common wisdom is that synchrony is more important.
I am demonstrating the various levels of abstraction from Torah to second temple this is not a gradual process so I would not define it as diachronic but rather the intermingling of two cultures that produces a new stage of Hebrew. A new version of Hebrew. I would be interested in anyone who claims diachronic change through the second temple books as opposed to the changes driven by cultural exchange.
You and I have already discussed how we understand abstraction. That point aside, isn't it pretty hard to deny that basically all languages change historically? In this respect, Hebrew is like other tongues, including English and Greek. I don't know any professional linguist or Semitic scholar who denies historical change of Hebrew. Do you know any?
Most work from there own perspective - a western one. I totally disagree as ancient native cultures who had no interaction with outside influences have not been studied in the same level of detail.
In reality there is no such single language as English or Greek who both use characters from a transformed Hebrew Alephbet & many words from it (I have seen enough evidence of Edenics in these hybrid languages.
Why does UK English spell "colour" rather than "color". This could even be an anthropomorphic example of ecotone with the highest level of interaction on the peripheries.
This is why the work of a few like Dan Everett (regardless of his interpretations) are so important. Unfortunately these example also prove my point as the cultures contacted quickly become more abstract (diluted) in thinking and language.
Its not that the Hebrew changes but WHEN it changes - this is not being addressed as they cannot see the wood for the trees.
Modern Hebrew is English dressed up to look like Hebrew - an intentional fabrication.
Like it or not this is the premise that most scholars today base there work on diachronic change:-
https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=qG3p20thvvIC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=diachronic+change+in+primitive+languages&ots=tjQlxuEQjS&sig=GO8Az-D44ZVAd7beU50oN7-Q6OQ#v=onepage&q=diachronic%20change%20in%20primitive%20languages&f=false
An entirely flawed premise.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=OTh8eqEzjbAC&pg=PA57&lpg=PA57&dq=diachronic+change+in+primitive+languages&source=bl&ots=UPxr9fAG9l&sig=DYIBZMPp6CHhxmVG6BNSO4fKftM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjk94-queLTAhVlK8AKHbYLDkkQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=diachronic%20change%20in%20primitive%20languages&f=false
Have yet to read it all but it looks interesting.
Australian English:-
https://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/language/aboriginal-words-in-australian-english#axzz4gZW7zun8
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=VY_SDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA224&dq=Insights+into+Editing+in+the+Hebrew+Bible+and+the+Ancient+Near+East&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjD7d3g2OLTAhVoKMAKHbKeB4UQ6AEILDAC#v=onepage&q=Insights%20into%20Editing%20in%20the%20Hebrew%20Bible%20and%20the%20Ancient%20Near%20East&f=false
If this is true then diachronic analysis would be impossible at any level prior to the Early Septuagint and DSS evidence - the actual written evidence to hand (the claim of going back another 300 years is unproven).
I believe the changes in the other near eastern languages discussed here is mostly down to empire expansion & accommodating cultural & language differences of surrounding people adsorbed into the respective empire. An interchange.
"5. Conclusions
In conclusion, no one will deny that the linguistic data of BH are difficult. For this reason not only must we be cautious in drawing diachronic conclusions from them, but at the same time we should not quickly give up the enterprise, as has been suggested."
https://ancienthebrewgrammar.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/bhdiachtypo-cook1.pdf
This is the standard type of conclusion I expect from this kind of enterprise which I interpret as - so far we have found nothing of real note but funding is to be sought so we will claim a positive result to be just around the corner.
I suppose only time will tell.
This piece seems to address some of your concerns. Apologies if you've already seen it: http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~dresher/papers/02Dresher.pdf
First impressions. Using old English as a comparison seems highly unrealistic as this is an amalgam of many races and dialect vary from county to county. From Norse in the east to Celtic in the West Gaulish from the south etc. Place names still cover the full spectrum.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=rwS5BgAAQBAJ&pg=PA350&lpg=PA350&dq=mamlākâ+and+malkût&source=bl&ots=CEAKTPx2fN&sig=I8VzPyEQR1Oc3Tv-GAqBSP1CCnc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjLmNX81eTTAhVjF8AKHR8FANQQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=maml%C4%81k%C3%A2%20and%20malk%C3%BBt&f=false
Please note paragraph at bottom of page 350.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=YfonHH4ooOgC&pg=PA84&lpg=PA84&dq=mamlākâ+and+malkût&source=bl&ots=Non2Dk36Fz&sig=BimPJcnMuUVb3aAF9T1xWSXeK-Y&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjLmNX81eTTAhVjF8AKHR8FANQQ6AEIIDAB#v=onepage&q=maml%C4%81k%C3%A2%20and%20malk%C3%BBt&f=false
A new find:-
https://www.academia.edu/31880919/Linguistic_Dating_Writing_Systems_and_the_Pentateuchal_Sources
I think this work by Joosten makes a point on page 328:-
http://www.jstor.org/stable/27913754?seq=2#page_scan_tab_contents
"The most impressive illustrations of diachronic development in biblical Hebrew come from the lexicon. The fact that chronicles has a handful of Persian words and probably at least one Greek is a strong indication that its language reflects a later variety of Hebrew than does Kings, where we find only one Persian word and no Greek at all.....
Post a Comment