Is Biblical Hebrew a Language? Studies in Semitic Languages and Civilizations

1979 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 92-92
Author(s):  
Geza Vermes
Keyword(s):  
Biblical Hebrew ◽  
Semitic Languages ◽  
Language Studies

Notes on the shift from accusative constructions to prepositional phrases in Hebrew and Arabic

1981 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
pp. 8-14
Author(s):  
Naphtali Kinberg
Keyword(s):  
Biblical Hebrew ◽  
Semitic Languages ◽  
Prepositional Phrases ◽  
Modern Hebrew ◽  
Accusative Constructions ◽  
North Western

In an article published in the early sixties, M. Bogaert shows certain groups of verbs which in Biblical Hebrew (as well as in other north-western Semitic languages) may govern verbal suffixes instead of ‘dative’prepositions. This phenomenon is called by him ‘non-accusative verbal suffixes’.In his article ‘'et = ’el “to, towards” in Biblical Hebrew', S. Izre'el argues that the particle 'et sometimes occurs in contexts that elsewhere require the prepositions 'el ‘to, towards’ or 'im ‘with’. He concludes thatwith 'et is a preposition which in Modern Hebrew may be rendered by 'im or 'el, similar to the Hebrew preposition bƏ- which is sometimes translated into English as ‘in’ and at other times as ‘at’, according to the context.

scholarly journals Paronomastic Infinitives in North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic: A Typological Approach

2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 270-299
Author(s):  
Alessandro Mengozzi ◽  
Emanuele Miola
Keyword(s):  
Present Article ◽  
Biblical Hebrew ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Functional Variation ◽  
Semitic Languages ◽  
Early Christian ◽  
Bible Translations ◽  
North Eastern ◽  
Typological Approach

Abstract In the present article we aim to describe the distribution and functions of preposed and postposed paronomastic infinitives in literary and spoken varieties of North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic (NENA). In the first part, the syntax and the function(s) of constructions involving a paronomastic infinitive will be described from a typological point of view. Syntactic and functional variation of NENA paronomastic infinitives largely corresponds to what is found in other Semitic languages, as well as in many languages belonging to other families. In the second part of the article we will address the rendering of Biblical Hebrew and Classical Syriac paronomastic infinitives in NENA Bible translations and offer a survey of various constructions found in spoken varieties and in the language of early Christian Neo-Aramaic poetry.

Object markers and agreement pronouns in Semitic languages

1984 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 468-500 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. A. Khan
Keyword(s):  
Biblical Hebrew ◽  
Direct Object ◽  
The South ◽  
Semitic Languages ◽  
Priestly Source ◽  
Object Status ◽  
Aramaic Dialects

The term ‘Object Marker’ is used to refer to analytic particles or prepositions which signal the direct object status of a nominal. These are attested in a variety of forms in Semitic languages. For instance: 'eṯ, which is used in Hebrew and in the language of the Moabite stone, 'yt, which is attested in Phoenician and also in early Aramaic (e.g. Zakir inscription 5; Sefire I B/32, III/11, III/13; Aššur Ostracon 6).wt, which is found with a 3rd person pronominal suffix in the Old Aramaic Hadad inscription 28.yt, frequently employed in the Aramaic Targums (generally in slavish imitation of Hebrew 'eṯ) and also in other Western Aramaic dialects, e.g. Nabataean, Palmyrene, and Galilean Aramaic; in Christian Palestinian Aramaic it occurs regularly before pronominal suffixes but not before full nouns. It is only sporadically found in the Eastern Aramaic dialects, e.g. in early Syriac (about 12 times in the Peshitta, once in the ‘Hymn of the Soul’) and in Biblical Aramaic (once— Dn 3/12).l-, used in many dialects of Aramaic as an Object Marker, also occasionally in the Hebrew of the Priestly Source (e.g. Num. 32: 15) and quite frequently in Late Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew. Akkadianana, sometimes employed as an Object Marker in the later periods of the language, viz. Neo-Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian, and Late Babylonian, also sporadically in other periods, e.g. Middle Assyrian. In the South Semitic area may be listed Arabic 'iyyāand Gə'əzkiyya, both of which are used only with pronominal suffixes; Gə'əzlā-; the suffix particle -nin Amharic and Gafat, and the prefix particlesn- in Tigrinya andnä- oryä- in Soddo.

“My Thoughts Are (Not) Your Thoughts.” Transposed Second-Order Thinking in the Hebrew Bible

2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaco Gericke
Keyword(s):  
Hebrew Bible ◽  
Biblical Hebrew ◽  
Second Order ◽  
Religious Language ◽  
Western Philosophy ◽  
Twilight Zone ◽  
Greek Philosophy ◽  
Semitic Languages ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Ways Of Thinking

Following 19th-century distinctions between Hellenism and Hebraism, many popular 20th-century histories of Western philosophy assigned the intellectual world of the Hebrew Bible to a twilight zone between late mythological and early philosophical ways of thinking. Partly in response to this, research in Semitic languages during that time began to include comparative-linguistic arguments hoping to demonstrate radical structural incommensurability between Hebrew and Greek ways of thinking. In the latest trend in the associated research, a multi-disciplinary dialogue has been initiated on the subject of “second-order thinking” within the ancient Near East “before” or “outside” Greek philosophy. In this article, the author aims to contribute to the ongoing discussion by suggesting that Biblical Hebrew as religious language already presupposes an intricate variety of transposed second-order thinking.

Semantic category and situation aspect in the Biblical Hebrew Niphal and Hitpael

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-29
Author(s):  
Richard C. Benton
Keyword(s):  
Semantic Category ◽  
Linguistic Analysis ◽  
Biblical Hebrew ◽  
Motion Verbs ◽  
Complex Relationship ◽  
Derivational Morphology ◽  
Semitic Languages ◽  
Semantic Categories ◽  
Additional Dimension ◽  
Situation Aspect

Abstract A clear distinction between the Niphal and Hitpael derivational morphology in Biblical Hebrew has eluded scholars. Traditionally, they have been distinguished according to voice (passive and middle) and reflexivity, where the Niphal tends more to express the former and the Hitpael, the latter. These categories result in significant overlap between these verbal forms, however. To fill attempt to fill this gap, the present study examines the complex relationship between the situation aspect, namely, State, Activity, and Accomplishment, of these verbal forms and the semantic category of verbal roots, both of which contribute to the meaning of a given verb. The Niphal tends consistently towards the situation aspect of State, and the Hitpael towards Activity, as I showed previously (Benton 2009). This paper delves additionally into Accomplishments as a compound aspect of an Activity followed by a State, and it shows that the Hitpael expresses the first phase and the Niphal, the second. The semantic categories in this study include denominal, deadjectival, and motion verbs. The verbal forms consistently follow their situation aspect in all the semantic categories of this study, but, significantly, the semantic category of these verbs imposes an additional dimension of meaning, further distinguishing between the two verbal forms. Authors can combine roots and derivational morphology for stylistic effect. Finally, the article suggests areas where the intersection of morphology, situation aspect, and semantic category can aid linguistic analysis in Biblical Hebrew and other Semitic languages.

scholarly journals Perspectives from comparisons of the Hebrew l-suffix with the Shona h-suffix features

2018 ◽  
Vol 74 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Godwin Mushayabasa
Keyword(s):  
Biblical Hebrew ◽  
Semitic Languages ◽  
African Group ◽  
Aramaic Dialects

The ethical dative or dativus ethicus is a feature used with certain verbs in Biblical Hebrew, which, however, has continued to pose difficulties to grammarians as to its syntactic and semantic references. The feature is also present in other Semitic languages, namely, Syriac and other Aramaic dialects including Persian. Although quite a common feature, the ethical dative is seemingly difficult to translate into English, while its identification as an ethical dative is a widely accepted misnomer. This study attempts to resolve the identification of the feature’s grammatical role by seeking to relate it with a similar grammatical feature from Shona, a language from the Central and Southern African group of languages. Although there are some differences between the compared features, the similarities will go a long way to clarify the nature of the Semitic enigma that is currently known as the ethical dative in Hebrew and in other related Semitic languages.

Hebrew

2020 ◽  
pp. 189-212
Author(s):  
Coulter H. George
Keyword(s):  
Biblical Hebrew ◽  
The Other ◽  
Root Structure ◽  
Semitic Languages ◽  
The Bible ◽  
European Languages ◽  
English Translations ◽  
King James Version ◽  
The Way

The final chapter of the book turns to Biblical Hebrew so that the portrayal of a language from a different family can, through this very contrast, set off better what is Indo-European about the other languages considered so far. Not only are the sounds themselves different (the Semitic languages have many more fricatives and sounds produced in the throat than the older Indo-European languages did) but the way they’re arranged into words is also distinctive, with the triconsonantal root structure a notable hallmark of the Semitic family. Then, the chapter focuses on a couple of syntactic patterns that are especially characteristic of Biblical Hebrew, the waw-conversive and construct chains, showing how these features even make their way into the English translations of the Bible, such as the King James Version, in such phrases as “and it came to pass” and “Holy of Holies”.

On the concept of “sign” in the Hebrew Bible

Semiotica ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 (221) ◽  
pp. 105-121
Author(s):  
Robert Cantor
Keyword(s):  
Hebrew Bible ◽  
Near East ◽  
Biblical Hebrew ◽  
Ancient Near East ◽  
Biblical Narrative ◽  
Semitic Languages

AbstractIn this paper, we examine the use of signs as instruments of thought in Semitic languages of the ancient Near East. We employ a Peircean concept of “sign” together with derived typologies based upon Categorical (after Peirce), temporal, and effectual relations between events, as conceived by the intended interpreter. Following a brief discussion of the “sign” concept as attested in extinct Semitic languages and in Biblical Hebrew, we perform a typological analysis of the use of signs in Biblical narrative. On this basis, we infer that some Biblical writers had a tacit awareness of a tripartite concept of “sign.” Furthermore, we demonstrate that different Biblical writers had different preferences for the use of signs: symbolic (abstract) signs were favored in the Torah and iconic (embodied) signs were favored by the Major Prophets.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document