Edition 1.2
15 December 2011
E-Book
History of the Ancient and Modern Hebrew Language
By
David Steinberg
David.Steinberg@houseofdavid.ca
Home page http://www.houseofdavid.ca/
http://www.adath-shalom.ca/history_of_hebrewtoc.htm
Companion
E-Book -
Biblical Hebrew Poetry and Word
Play - Reconstructing the Original Oral, Aural and Visual Experience
TERMS, ABBREVIATIONS AND LINGUISTIC
SYMBOLS
1. Survey
of the Semitic languages
Box
1 - What is a Semitic √Root?
2. History
of Hebrew from its pre-history to the present
2.1 Pre-Exilic Hebrew (PreExH)
a) Varieties of Pre-Exilic Hebrew
b) Social Base of Pre-Exilic Hebrew
c) Time, Aspect and Volition in Biblical Hebrew
Box 2 - Joϋon-Muraoka on Time, Aspect and Volition in Biblical
Hebrew
Table 1 - What Time does the Biblical Hebrew
Participle Refer to when Used Verbally?
Box
3 - What is the “waw conversive"?
Box 4 - The Origin of the “waw conversive"
Table
2 - Time/Tense in Biblical Poetry
d) Changes Pending in Biblical Hebrew
2.2 Post-Exilic Hebrew (PostExH) - Written/Oral Diglossia
Box 5 - Some Factors
in the Rise of Late Biblical Hebrew
Background to Dialect, Koine and Diglossia
in Ancient Hebrew Clarification
from Colloquial Arabic
a. Development
of Proto-Mishnaic Hebrew (c. 586
BCE-c. 70 BC).
Box 6 - Influence of Aramaic on Post-Exilic
Hebrew
c. Mishnaic,
Middle or Rabbinic Hebrew
Table 3 - Deriving the Construct State
from the Absolute State is More Complex in TH than in EBHP
2.3 Changes in the Pronunciation of Biblical Hebrew Between the Early 6th
Century BCE and that Recorded in the Tiberian Masoretic Tradition
(early 10th century CE)
o
Consonants that Exist
in Modern Pronunciation but were absent in Hebrew of the First Temple Period
o
Dialect, Koine and Diglossia
in Ancient Hebrew: Clarification
from Colloquial Arabic
o
Words Significantly Different in Pronunciation in
Pre-Exilic Hebrew
o
Syllables Ending in Doubled Consonants in
Pre-Exilic Hebrew
2.4 Between the Mishnah and the Revival of Hebrew in the Late 19th
Century
2.6 Major Changes Between Ancient Hebrew and Israeli Hebrew
2.7 Israeli Hebrew and Modern Arabic – a Few Differences and Many Parallels
Table 4 - Western-type
Compound Nouns and Adjectives in Israeli Hebrew and MSA
Table 5 - Modern Hebrew and MSA Common Noun Patterns
1. Survey of the
Semitic Languages (See
for details Sáenz-Badillos chapt. 1)
The Semitic family[1] consists of a group of about 70 distinct language
forms closely related to each other and more distantly related to the rest of
the AfroAsiatic
group which
includes Ancient Egyptian, Berber and the Cushitic languages[2]. The
Semitic languages, as far back as can be traced (2nd and, in some cases, 3rd
millennium BCE), have occupied part of present day Iraq and all of present day
Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel and the Arabian peninsula.
Maps of the Ancient Near East http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_maps_asia_neareast.htm
A good, simple outline of the relations of the
Semitic languages to each other is at http://phoenicia.org/semlang.html
Since the Semitic languages are clearly closely
related[3], it is a reasonable and long-held assumption that
they are all derived from an original undifferentiated, though rather variable
language called Proto-Semitic. Although
no records of Proto-Semitic exist, through the comparative study of the various
languages it is possible to deduce, in outline, Proto-Semitic’s phonology, much
of its vocabulary and its grammar including some of its probable syntax.
In general, it can be said that each Semitic language preserved some Proto-Semitic
features whereas while diverging from Proto-Semitic in other features.
For instance, Akkadian, the language of the ancient
Babylonians and Assyrians[4] in
present day Iraq, has alone preserved the Proto-Semitic verbal system while its
sound system, influenced by the non-Semitic Sumerian language, was
greatly simplified. Classical Arabic[5] has most
faithfully preserved the Proto-Semitic
system of case endings of nouns and adjectives[6] and mood
endings of the verb and the Proto-Semitic sound system[7] though
in its syntax and use of tenses it is more removed from Proto-Semitic than is
Biblical Hebrew.
It is probable
that Proto-Semitic was spoken over most of the territory earlier mentioned
until 3500-3000 BCE. At about that time Akkadian split off. This
language, which was spoken until the first century BCE, has left written
records from about 2600 BCE.
Box 1 - What is a Semitic √Root?
In any discussion of Semitic languages
frequent mention will be made of “roots”. The term refers to three, less
often two[8], and occasionally four
consonants that form the basis of Semitic verbs and most nouns when combined
with patterns of vowels and sometimes consonants. These patterns are referred
to as stems, themes, stirpes or in Hebrew binyanim. Roots are also the basis of most nouns. E.g.
From the root √ŠBR} (š = sh) we
get in [TH] – [šɔː'vɐːr] – he broke [šɔː'vɐːrtiː] – I broke [šib'bẹːr] - he smashed [šub'bɐːr]– it was smashed [šә'voːr] - breaking [miš'bɔːr] – breaking waves |
The non-Akkadian[9] part of the Semitic family,
called West Semitic, divided prior to 2000 BCE into South Semitic, whose major
descendants are Arabic and the Semitic
languages of Ethiopia[10], and Northwest
Semitic which includes Aramaic[11] and the Canaanite languages of which Biblical
Hebrew was one. Shortly
after this split, the initial /w/ sound in Northwest Semitic became /y/[12]. Thus we have the
equivalence such as the root √whb in Arabic corresponds to √yhb יהב in Hebrew
and Aramaic. Thus also, the word for child in Arabic is /walad/ while in Pre-Exilic biblical Hebrew (/EBHP/) Hebrew it was */'yald/ ילד <yld> now
pronounced ['yɛlɛd].
Probably even as late as 2000 BCE
one can picture a dialect continuum where, from the desert fringes of
Iraq through south-eastern Anatolia, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan and the Arabian Peninsula a traveler could have passed from
tribe to tribe and village to village noticing only very slight and gradual dialectical changes as he progressed.
Although people at the opposite extremes of this language area might have been
unable to understand each other, at no point would a language frontier like
those, say, between French and German occur. This situation is quite
similar to that pertaining to the various dialects of spoken Arabic over the same area (and beyond in
North Africa), today[13]. It is from this period
i.e. the third millennium BCE, that we receive our first records of the Semitic
languages. These records comprehend 3 languages:
Akkadian (East Semitic) – both in
Akkadian texts and Akkadian words preserved in Sumerian texts;
Eblaite (intermediate between East Semitic and West Semitic) – preserved in Early Bronze Age (2500 BCE) tablets
amounting to about 3000 tablets in all;
Amorite[14] – this West-Semitic language is preserved mainly in proper names in
Sumerian and Akkadian texts. Fortunately, as Semitic names are frequently
short sentences – e.g. Hebrew ’eli'yah = 'my God is YH' – the language can be partly
reconstructed even from such meager data.
The situation outlined ended
with the rise of political-cultural centers in the Northwest Semitic areas. By about 1000 BCE,
the dialect of Damascus had established itself as normative Aramaic and started a spread, helped by
its use as a lingua franca, which would enable it, by 100
BCE to completely replace Akkadian in the North-East and, by 200 CE to displace
Hebrew in the south.
2.
History of
Hebrew from its Pre-history[15]
to the
Present (See for
details Sáenz-Badillos)
While Damascus Aramaic was becoming
a standard language in
We
have only fragments of most of the various
Canaanite dialects, of the
period 1000-500 BCE. However, it would seem that they were mutually
intelligible[16]. Two dialects, from opposite ends of the
Canaanite spectrum, have left literary remains. In the extreme
north, on the Lebanese coast, was Phoenician[17]
and its North African Carthaginian offshoot Punic,
have left inscriptions[18]
dating from 10th-1st centuries BCE and 9th C
BCE to 2nd CE respectively. This tended to be a rapidly
developing language very open to foreign influences as we would expect for a
language of a sea-faring people. In the extreme South we have the
literary dialect of Jerusalem
i.e. CBH.
Before we leave the other
languages, we could point out one of the many benefits to the understanding of
Hebrew gained through the comparative study of Semitic languages. As I said before, the
Semitic languages are closely related. For example “A survey of the first
100 Phoenician words in the dictionary shows that 82 percent have the same
meaning in Hebrew. Between Ugaritic[19] and Hebrew the figure is about 79
percent.” Thus it not infrequently occurs that a root or word may be
common in say Aramaic, while it may occur only once or twice in Hebrew. A
knowledge of Aramaic may then lead to an understanding of
the Hebrew word. Thus the root √yhb occurs only in the imperative of
the basic stem of the verb (qal or pa’al) sometimes in the same context as
the normal Hebrew root √ntn
meaning “to give”. In
Aramaic, the root {YHB} is routinely used meaning “to give” and it is clear
that the meaning in Hebrew is the same.
You may be familiar with Psalm 137:5
אם
אשכח ירושלם
תשכח ימיני
The King James Bible translates
this as “If I forget thee O Jerusalem let my right hand forget her cunning. The last two words are printed
in italics. In the King James Bible this indicates that the words
are not found in the Hebrew. We can
see the problem of the early translators. What they read was “If I forget
thee Jerusalem let my right hand forget”. Clearly this is problematic.
Hence they added their guess of what it might forget – i.e. its cunning.
The problem is that the same root שׁכח is used
twice in the same stem in the same verse. This root, in this stem, is the
normal way to say “forget” in Hebrew. There are 6 possible Proto-Semitic
origins of the Hebrew root שכח.
Ugaritic
has a root th-k-ḥ = shrivel which fills the bill (see Barr p. 336 Select Bibliography
below and GRAY, JOHN, THE LEGACY OF CANAAN: THE RAS SHAMRA TEXTS AND THEIR
RELEVANCE TO THE OLD TESTAMENT, SECOND, REVISED EDITION, E. J. BRILL,
LEIDEN 1965 pp 283-4)
Thus, the New Revised Standard
Version translates our verse as –
“If I forget you O Jerusalem, let my right
hand wither”
It makes sense!
We can explain the course of event as
follows:
1. Around 2000 BCE
Proto-Hebrew had two distinct roots: (1) θ-k-ḥ or θ–k-ḫ depending on its proto-Semitic origin meaning “shrivel”; and, (2) š-k-ḥ “forget”;
2. Prior to 1000 BCE all instances of the fricative /θ/ in Hebrew shifted to /š/ =sh /ʃ/[20] hence the roots became
indistinguishable leading to the abandonment of שׁכח “shrivel” except in the
conservative poetic dialect in situations where it was not likely to be
confused and could be used for a pleasing poetic effect such as in our
verse;
3.
In time the meaning of שׁכח
“shrivel” was completely lost due to its
rare use, destruction of scribal schools
etc...
It
should be noted that comparative philology is difficult to use credibly and can
easily be abused. See Barr.
2.1
Pre-Exilic Hebrew (PreExH) (See also Sáenz-Badillos chapt. 3-5)
a) Varieties of Pre-Exilic Hebrew
See - Diglossia and Dialect in PExH: What Do We
Mean by Judahite and Israelian Hebrew?
Ø
Proto-Hebrew (PH). The Canaanite dialects (c.1200-1000
B.C.E.) that would develop into Hebrew with the loss of the case endings. For
details see BHA phase 2. Sources - see Harris 1939, Hendel-Lambdin-Huehnergard, Sáenz-Badillos.
Ø Pre-exilic
Classical Biblical Hebrew (CBH). The
literary dialect of Jerusalem c.950-586 B.C.E (First Temple Period). This is the only widely attested
form of Judahite Hebrew. It developed out of PH. See: Establishment of Jerusalem Written and Spoken Dialects (c. 1000-c. 900 BCE).
Ø Israelian Hebrew - This is a
catchall term for all the dialects spoken in the villages and towns of the Kingdom of Israel c. 1000 BCE until at least the seventh century BCE. We
have very little evidence of Israelian Hebrew. The use of this term does not
imply that these
dialects had more in common with each other than many of them had to some of
the dialects spoken in the Kingdom of Judah and hence classed under the rubric Judahite Hebrew.
Ø Judahite Hebrew (BHA phase 3). This is a catchall term for all the dialects spoken in the villages and towns of the Kingdom of Judah during the First Temple Period. Use of the term Judahite Hebrew does not imply that
these presumably variable dialects had more in common with each other than many
of them had to some of the dialects spoken in the Kingdom of Israel and hence
classed under the rubric Israelian
Hebrew.
As stated earlier, Biblical Hebrew (see Steiner and Encyclopedia Judaica) is the literary form of the very conservative
dialect of Jerusalem. CBH crystallized in Jerusalem about 900 BCE and showed
little change until the Babylonian Exile in the 6th century BCE. From then on, Post-Classical Biblical Hebrew (PCBH) became more and more an archaic literary vehicle
radically different from the (presumed) spoken Hebrew[21]. As a literary dialect it was used until the
fall of the Second Temple in 70 CE.
Biblical Hebrew can be divided into a number of registers including:
Ø
Poetic
Biblical Hebrew - This is divided into an archaizing poetic form
(ABH)
and a standard poetic form (e.g. Job, Psalms). The archaizing poetic
form used a special vocabulary and the poetry written in it is highly stylized.
The date of origin of the earliest poems is in dispute. They may date from as
early as the eleventh century BCE or as late as the nineth. The latest poems in
the Hebrew Bible may date from about 450 BCE.
Ø
Prophetic
Hebrew[22] - This is a semi-poetic
form of rhythmic speech used in e.g. Isaiah which may be compared to blank
verse[23]. The use of verb forms in prophetic
poetry and in the
minor poems scattered through the Hebrew Bible is more similar to their use in BH prose than to their use in psalmic poetry; and,
Ø
Prose Biblical
Hebrew[24]
It is clear that PCBH developed in the exilic and post-exilic period.
However, there is actually no reason to believe that CBH did not continue to be used in some circles well
after 500 BCE alongside PCBH.[25]
b) Social
Base of Pre-Exilic Hebrew
Ø
The similarity of Biblical poetry to Ugaritic poetry clearly indicates continuity in the literary
tradition between pre-Israelite
Ø Continuance of the Canaanite Israelite Literary
Tradition. This tradition was likely oral in its early phases and
mixed oral and written through much of its history. In this connection it may
be interesting to quote Dever[26]
One
of the revisionists' principal objections to
Ø Transition from Iron I
to Iron II - “The
considerable archaeological evidence that I have summarized here regarding centralized
planning and administration reflects what is regarded in the literature as the
principal trait of state-level organization.... I would stress ... that the city
defenses and all the rest are part of a dramatic, large-scale process of
organization and centralization that utterly transformed the landscape of most
of Palestine in the period from the early 10th to early 9th century. It is such
shifts in settlement type and distributions together with marked demographic
changes that signal most clearly a new archaeological and thus new cultural
phase, in this case the transition from Iron I to
Iron II.[28]
Ø Dialects
- We do not have
any
information on the dialects of the Shephelah[29]. The only direct information that
we have on the Samarian dialect(s) is derived from the
“In the sphere of language, the ostraca tell us little of the northern
dialect beyond the likelihood that the process of diphthongal reduction had gone further in
Israelite than in Judean Hebrew; thus ין = [yēn], passim, as
against יין = [yayn] in the biblical
orthography….”
See - Dialect,
Koine and Diglossia in Ancient Hebrew
and the table - Some Political, Social and Linguistic
Developments in the Pre-Exilic Period c. 1000-586 BCE.
Ø
The Separation of Israel and Judah – This would
have reduced the wealth of the government in Jerusalem and lessened its need
for scribal services and also led to an exodus of Samarian, Galilean and
Gileadite nobles or officials that had established themselves in the capital.
Among other impacts, this would have diminished the influence in Jerusalem of
Israelite dialects from Samaria, Galilee and Gilead all of which
were now included in the kingdom of Israel.
Ø
Samarian
Refugees Inundate
“The
royal citadel of Jerusalem was transformed in a single generation from the seat
of a rather insignificant local dynasty into the political and religious nerve
center of a regional power—both because of dramatic internal developments and
because thousands of refugees from the conquered kingdom of Israel fled to the
south.
Here
archaeology has been invaluable in charting the pace and scale of
A
similar picture of tremendous population growth emerges from the archaeological
surveys in
…(W)ith
the influx of refugees from the north after the fall of
It is
likely that
the flood of Samarian refugees brought with them Northern (Samarian and, to a
lesser extent Galilean and Gileadite) traditions such as the hero-stories
included in the Book of Judges,
and traditions relating to the Northern Israelite heroes – Jacob,
Joseph,
Joshua,
Elijah
and Elisha.
They may also have brought documents reflecting the E tradition
and the core of Dueteronomy
Regarding the linguistic impact of the Samarian refugees see Development of Proto-Mishnaic
Hebrew (c. 586 BCE-c. 70 BC).
c) Time, Aspect
and Volition in Biblical Hebrew
See Background on
Biblical Hebrew Prefix
Conjugation; Background on Biblical Hebrew Suffix
Conjugation (traditional
"perfect")
Proto-Semitic
Tense System – basically as in Akkadian see Encyclopedia Judaica article Hebrew Language
vol. 16 col. 1566-1568
Biblical Prose - The exact range of meanings of the Biblical Hebrew SC
and PC verbal forms has long been subject to debate. As put by
Greenstein[34] -
The language of the
Hebrew Bible constitutes in the Masoretic Text a self-contained system. Put
differently, the Masoretic shaping of the biblical text levels all phenomena
within it into one language.... No area of BH grammar has so little succumbed
to satisfactory analysis as that of gthe diverse forms and functions of the
verb. No analysis has come close to encompassing the gamut of large and minute phenomena
that inhabit this most mystifying demain.
Among the most
perennially perplexing topics concerning the BH verb is the fact that different
forms of the verb serve similar functions and that diverse functions may be
fulfilled by one and the same form.... How is it that the prefixed form of the BH
verb expresses the present-future here and the past there? Why does biblical
verse ... use either a prefixed or suffixed form of the verb to represent the
narrated past? Rainey's answer[35]... is that early
Canaanite posessed two sets of prefixed verb forms, both defined by their mood:
the "indicative" yaqtulu and the "injunctive" yaqtul.
The "indicative" yaqtulu, however, had a preterite to
represent the narrated past, the shorter form yaqtul. Accordingly, early
Canaanite spawned two potentially confusing overlaps. With respect to form,
the yaqtul pattern could homonymously represent either a jussive or a
past tense. One could only interpret the verb's semantic reference on the basis
of context. With regard to function, the narrated past could be expressed by
either the suffix form of the verb, *qatala, or by the preterite form of
the yaqtulu indicative, yaqtul.
Useful descriptions of the complex biblical Hebrew verbal system are found in: Joϋon-Muraoka 1991 Part Two chapter II; Waltke-O’Connor chapters 30-34; and, Naude-Kroeze- Merwe chapter 4. As presented by Naude-Kroeze- Merwe (p. 144) -
It is not clear
whether in BH it is time that assumes aspect, or aspect that asssumes time.... BH speakers and
narrators had a choice of describing either the aspect or the time of an action.
They apparantly also had a choice with respect to the perspective from which
they described an action. This could be
done from the perspective of the narrator or the narrator could present the
action from the perspective of his characters. In the latter case it is
sometimes difficult to translate the ...(SC) with the past tense and the
imperfect with the present or future tense
Box 2 - Joϋon-Muraoka
on Time, Aspect and Volition in BH |
“… to express
(without Waw) the present, Hebrew has three forms available: qatal for state
and instantaneous action, yiqtol for repeated or durative action, qotel for
durative or (secondarily) repeated action. The value of each
verbal form (qatal, yiqtol, qotel) is multiple and relative. In each of the
two verb categories (active verbs and stative verbs), and, what is more, in
each particular verb, the value of a verbal form is brought out by its
contrast with the other two forms. In Hebrew, as in any other language,
verbal forms "limit each other reciprocally" [36]. Thus in order to be fully aware of the value of a qatal
in a given context, we must ask ourselves what a yiqtol or a qotel would
mean. The system of
Hebrew temporal forms, simplistic and even primitive in certain features, is
in other respects complex and subtle. If Hebrew neglects the expression of
some modalities which our languages habitually express, it expresses, on the
other hand, nuances which we usually neglect. By way of
conclusion some deficiencies of the Hebrew temporal forms will now be noted: 1) They express both time and aspect, but only
imperfectly. Thus, in the yiqtol used for a future action the aspect of the
action is not shown. There is no single form for each of the three temporal
spheres. Thus the forms express time not as perfectly as our languages do.
After an initial form which situates the action in a temporal sphere, there
is fairly often a certain freedom as to what form must be taken by the
following verb, which sometimes seems to be used in an atemporal way and to
take the value of the preceding form. 2) The nuance of
succession and the volitive cannot be expressed at the same time. Thus it is
not possible to render the following literally: "I want to go and I
(then) want to glean"; either the expression of succession or that of
will must be sacrificed, to give either: "I want to go and to
glean" (Ru 2.2) or "I want to go and (then) I shall glean"
(cf. Ru 2.7). 3) When a second
action is negative, neither succession nor purpose-consecution can be
expressed, seeing that the negation is usually ולא (for purpose sometimes ואל; cf. § 116 j). 4) Volitive forms
with ו are ambiguous. The waw may be purely juxtaposing (direct
volitive) or modal (indirect volitive: purpose/consecution). 5) Finally,
morphological deficiency must be mentioned. In many cases the form is
ambiguous. Thus אֶגְלֶה can
be used as cohortative as well as indicative, יִקטֹל, יָשִיבוּ: as
jussive as well as indicative. And likewise the forms with suffixes. Finally,
the form marked specifically as cohortative (§ 114 b, n.) and jussive
(§ 114 g, n.) is sometimes non-existent.”[37] |
The situation is further
complicated in that:
§
The
active participle, when used as a verb, can cover the range of meanings of the
PC imperfect
and thus, depending on circumstances, can be used in relation to
the past, present or future[38];
§
The SC can indicate actions, facts or events which are
not time-bound[39]; and,
§
The infinitive absolute, infinitive construct and nominal
clauses[40] can be used to substitute for any verbal forms
referring to the past, present or future.
Table 1
What
Time does the Biblical Hebrew Participle Refer to When Used Verbally?
Time Reference |
Language Type |
Percentage of Occurrences |
Concurrent
time |
11.6% |
|
25.9% |
||
Preceding
time |
CBH |
58.9% |
PCBH |
27.3% |
|
Subsequent
time |
CBH |
10% |
PCBH |
2% |
|
General
time |
CBH |
36.4% |
PCBH |
62.9% |
In BH prose:
- Actions in the past that
are seen as completed are normally expressed, depending on context, by
either SC (SCpast) שמר (<šmr> (/EBHP/) */ša'mar/, (/TH/) /šå'mar/ (/TH/+) *[šɔː'mɐːr]) or PC preterite (PCpret). The
preterite, in prose, is usually prefixed by ו (PCpretWC), taking the form וישמר (<(w)yšmr> (/EBHP/) */(way)'yišmur/; (/TH/) /(way)yiš'mor/ (/TH/+) *[(wɐy)yiš'moːr]).
- Actions
in the future are occasionally expressed using SC (SCprof) שמר (<šmr> (/EBHP/) */ša'mar/, (/TH/+) /šå'mar/) if they are seen as certain to happen, as good as completed[41];
- Actions in the present
and future and ongoing actions in the past[42] are normally expressed, depending on context[43], by either PC (PCimp_prfut; PCimp_pdur ) imperfect ישמר ((/EBHP/) */yiš'mur/ or the waw conversive form of the SC (SCwc) ושמר
(<wšmr> (/EBHP/) */waša'mar/, (/TH/) /wәšå'mar/ (/TH/+)
*[wәšɔː'mɐːr]).
- States in
the present are seen
as being complete so the SC forms are used for the past and present e.g. ידעתי in the
Bible means "I know or knew" depending on context. Similarly קטונתי means "I
am or was small". The PCimp is used for the future.
What is the “waw conversive"?
The
“waw conversive" (Hebrew ההיפוך ו) is a defining feature
of Biblical Hebrew. Superficially it appears that a prefix וַ (and
doubling of the following prefix) added to the preterite (PCpret)-jussive (PCjus) (יקטל and
where it exists, the shorter form of the imperfect[44] e.g. יבן/יבך) converts the meaning
of the verb into that of the perfect (SCpast קטל) while adding וְ (and
sometimes accompanied by a shift of stress) to the perfect, converts the
meaning of the verb into that of the imperfect. verbal major is also known as
the “waw consecutive" since it is normally used in sequential
narrative. |
Box 4
The Origin
of the “waw conversive"
Most scholars would
agree regarding the Biblical Hebrew “waw conversive" that: a) the PC waw conversive is a remnant of an Akkadian-like
preterite; b) the SC waw conversive was a later analylogical formation.[45] However, there is a wide range of views on the details[46]. Smith 1991 reviews many of these. In
addition, those of Hezron[47] and Blau[48] should be noted. |
Biblical Poetry
As correctly stated by Niccacci
2006:
Ø "... it was and still is a fairly
common opinion among scholars, although not always openly declared, that
the verbal forms in poetry, more than in prose, can be taken to mean everything
the interpreter thinks appropriate according to his understanding and
context.... (In reality) the functions of verbal forms in (BH) poetry are
basically the same as in (BH) prose, more precisely in direct speech."
(p. 247)
Ø "The main difference is that direct
speech, as prose in genral, consists of pieces of information conveyed
in a sequence, while poetry communicates segments of information in
parallelism. The result is linear vs. segmental communication. As a
consequence, poetry is able to switch from one temporal axis to another even
more freely than direct speech. This results in a greater variety of, and more
abrupt transition from, one verbal form to another." (p. 248)
In addition to its segmental nature, the system of
parallelism which pervades and largely defines BH poetics draws heavily on the
ability of the language to allow the use of synonyms, near synonyms and, at
times, on the availability of multiple verb forms for identical, similar or
related meanings.
Table 2
Time/Tense in Biblical Poetry[49]
Temporal Axis |
Reconstructed /EBHP/ |
Comments |
SCpast - *qaˈtal |
Meanings of SC and PCpret_sim/PCpretWC are usually identical. |
|
PCpret_sim - *ˈyiqtul or PCpretWC *wayˈyiqtul |
||
Durative Past |
See above. E.gs. Dt 32:16-17a.; Ju 5:29. |
|
Present |
Non-verbal sentence with/without
participle |
E.gs.Gen 49:3, 5, 12, 14, 21; Nu
23:22; Nu 24:16; Dt 32:4-9, 28, 31-34; Dt 33:13-16b, 20, 25, 26; Ps 48:2-3;
127:3-4; 128:3; 145:13 |
SC of stative quasi-stative verb and PCimp of action
verb sometimes combined clearly indicating that reference is to present. |
||
Present/Future |
PCimp_prfut - *yiqˈtul |
Usual form. |
Occassionally used probably for
literary effect. Nb. although SCwc is usually identical. in meaning to the PCimp, it sometimes has a
jussive sense. |
||
Future Volitive |
PCjus - *ˈyiqtul PCcoh - *ʾiqˈtula(ː); *niqˈtula(ː) Imperative - */qˈtul/ or */quˈtul/ |
Jussive can be, and frequently
is, used as substitute for the imperative. E.g. Ps. 10:15, 17:8, 43:1, 51:14;
54:3. |
Until late in the reading tradition
of BH, in most cases, the PCjus, PCpret_sim and
PCpretWC were distinguished
from the PCimp by the position of the word stress. The disappearance
of this distinction has created doubt regarding the time (future/present/past
durative vs. perfective
aspect
of the past
tense) in many lines of biblical poetry.
See Observations
on Some Aspects of the Use of Tenses in Psalms
Table A - Tense Implications of SC and PC in the Same Verse
Table
C - PCpret_sim and PCpretWC in the Same
Verse Referring to the Past
Table
D - PCpret_sim and SC in the Same Verse Referring to
the Past
Table
E - PCpretWC and SC in the Same Verse Referring to
the Past
Table
F - PCpret_sim without PCpretWC or SC in
the Same Verse Referring to the Past
Table
G - PCpretWC
Should be Revocalized as PCimp
Table
H - Substitutes
for PCimp
PCpret_sim in
Prophetic Poetry
d) Changes
Pending in Biblical Hebrew (BH)
All synchronic views of a language
(descriptions of the language at a single point in time), when viewed
diachronically (i.e. within the context of the language's growth in time), are
snapshots of changes completed, in mid-stride or incipient. However, in some
periods these changes are more far-reaching then in others. The Hebrew language
was at such a period in the years of pre-exilic Biblical Hebrew (c. 900-600
BCE). We do not know
how Biblical Hebrew would have developed had the
Major changes pending were:
i. Tenses
Kutscher (1976 p. 41) wrote “The tense system of the
verb in Biblical Hebrew is more complicated than in any other Semitic dialect.” In fact the “consecutive tenses” (see Box 2 - What is the “waw
conversive"? and Box 3 - The Origin of the
“waw conversive" ) were the dying remnants of an Akkadian-like tense
system about to give way to some sort of simplified verbal system. Use of the
consecutive tenses required that verbs precede subject and object in
utterances. Thus the disappearance of the consecutive
tenses opened up the possibility of other sentence orders.
Similarly the modal imperfects (jussive, cohortative), increasingly became indistinguishable from the
normal imperfect, also were anachronisms waiting to be replaced by
clearer and more consistent indications of volition etc..
ii. Place of
Stress
With the loss of the final short
vowels, Hebrew (and Aramaic) was left with a mixed system of ultimate and
penultimate syllabic stress which only made sense in the context of its
structure before the loss of the final short vowels[50]. Although languages such as
Spanish and Italian have more complex stress patterns, it is likely that the
pattern would again become more uniform. Two obvious possibilities present
themselves:
Ø
Scenario (a) - Stress
could become uniformly penultimate, as it was before
the loss of case endings etc., or uniformly ultimate; or,
Ø
Scenario (b) - Stress
could revert to being mechanically fixed by vowel or consonant length as in most varieties
of Arabic.
In BH both vowel length and place of stress were
phonemic though neither carried a heavy load. Scenario (a) maintains the
irrelevance of vowel and consonant length to the placement of stress keeping
the road open to the disappearance of phonemic vowel and consonant length.
Scenario (b) would reestablish the centrality of vowel and consonant length
thus reestablishing paradigmatic resistance to long vowel and
consonant reduction.
iii. Place of Stress Replacing Vowel and Consonant
Length as Phonemic
Consonant and vowel quality had always been most
important in establishing phonemic distinctions. In Biblical Hebrew both place of stress and
consonant and vowel quantity was phonemic. However, there was a tendency, due
to sound shifts, for vowel length distinctions to be replaced by quality
distinctions (see Vowel and Consonant Length).
Looking back and ahead, we can picture the developments as follows:
a)
C. 2000 BCE phonemic distinction /a/:/ā/; /i/:/ῑ/; /u/:/ū/ were fully operative;
b) C. 1400 BCE
ā>ō leaving i:ῑ; u:ū still phonemic;
c)
After C. 700-500 BCE
development of allophones of short vowels meant that most of the
Biblical Hebrew vowel minimal pairs were no longer valid in the tradition
of the Tiberian Masoretes. However, we should note that distinct long and short
vowels and consonants, though no longer phonemic probably did still exist in
Tiberian Hebrew;
In Israeli Hebrew distinct long and
short vowels do not exist (see Vowel
System - Modern Israeli Hebrew).
iv. Long Unstressed Vowel Followed by
Short Stressed Vowel
Perhaps in forms such as /EBHP/+ /qō'teːl/ (qal a.p.) and /EBHP/+ /cō'laːm/ 'eternity' there might have been
a tendency to lengthen the stressed vowel and shorten the
historically long unstressed vowel.
2.2 Post-Exilic Hebrew
(PostExH) - Written/Oral Diglossia
Box 5
Some
Factors in the Rise of Post-Exilic
Hebrew (PostExH)
"The
notion that spoken dialects provided the catalyst for the changes in late
biblical Hebrew is consistent with what has been previously stated about
linguistic change. Saussure, for example, noted that language change always
has its locus at the point of interaction of the speaker with his speech
community.[51] The clearest
impetus for the linguistic change of late biblical Hebrew is the backdrop of
the Babylonian exile. During the exile, no doubt, the language changed more
rapidly. Blount and Sanches have noted that external factors such as
invasions, conquests, contact, migrations, institutional changes,
restructuring, and social movements produce language change.[52] It is striking
that the nation of Also with the
return of the exiles from Quoted from Rooker p.
143. |
a. Development of Proto-Mishnaic Hebrew (c. 586 BCE-c. 70 BC).
b. The Impact of
Aramaic
Hebrew and Aramaic developed out of
local varieties of Proto-Northwest
Semitic They diverged for about 1000 years
- from the time of the Canaanite shift until the exile in the early 7th century
BCE - and converged from the early 7th century BCE until the extinction of MH as a spoken language in the mid
second century CE when its
population base was destroyed with the
suppression of the Bar Kochba rebellion. Their
convergence during this latter period was due to the overwhelming influence of
Western Aramaic on MH. The greatest expert on Jewish Aramaic and Mishnaic
Hebrew of the mid-twentieth century, E. Y. Kutscher wrote[54] -
"There is room for
investigation as to whether MH was a Hebrew-Aramaic mixed language. The
question may be posed owing to the fact that Aramaic had a pervading influence
in all spheres of the language, including inflection, which is generally
considered to be inpenetrable to foreign influence."
Though pre-exilic Judean Hebrew was
to some extent influenced by occasional waves of linguistic innovations,
originating in other closely related Canaanite languages (See the table Linguistic Influences on the
Regions of Judah and Israel, and Harris 1939 and 1941), only in border areas of Gilead and
eastern and northern Galilee was Hebrew exposed to a non-Canaanite language viz.
Aramaic. An example, in the northern and
very early Song of Deborah, is the verb יְתַנּוּ “let them recount” using the
Aramaic version of the root תנה in place of
the Hebrew שׁנה. Until the
late eighth century BCE it would be true to say that there was no significant
potion of the Judean population who were bilingual and Jerusalemites could
probably pass their lives without ever having to speak or understand a foreign
tongue.
This began to change with the fall
of
Starting in the early sixth century BCE all Hebrew speakers
would have been exposed to Aramaic. Indeed, from
early in the 6th century B.C.E. until the extinction of Hebrew as a spoken
language in the 2nd century C.E. Hebrew was under continuous pressure from
Aramaic, a language as closely related to Hebrew as Spanish is to Italian. In addition, from the late fourth
century Greek was widely spoken in
Box 6
Influence
of Aramaic on Post-Exilic Hebrew (PostExH)
… Aramaic had a far-reaching impact and left its mark on
all facets of the language, namely, orthography, phonetics and phonology,
morphology including inflection, syntax, and vocabulary. There is room for
investigation as to whether Mishnaic Hebrew was a Hebrew-Aramaic mixed
language. This question may be posed owing to the fact that A had a
pervading influence in all spheres of the language, including inflection,
which is generally considered to be impenetrable to foreign influence…. Orthography. All of the
peculiarities mentioned above as being in MH are found, more or less, in the
Palestinian Aramaic dialects as well, especially Galilean and
Christian-Palestinian Aramaic, and even in the eastern dialects. Phonetics and Phonology. The fact that the consonantal phonemes (according to
biblical Aramaic also the vocalic phonemes) are from a synchronic point of
view identical in both languages—a phenomenon without parallel often even in
different dialects of the same language—is noteworthy…. Common to H and
Aramaic are: the double realization כפ״ת בג״ד (b
g d k p t); the weakening of the gutturals to a greater or lesser extent
in most of the Aramaic dialects; and common assimilation and dissimilation
phenomena (with regard to ר …, especially
in Galilean Aramaic). Inflection. The independent personal pronoun אַתְּ ("you" masc.) and the possessive pronouns ־ָךְ,.יךְ. … are clear
indications of Aramaic influence. With regard to the verb, the influence was
weaker…. The loss of the puccal is paralleled in Aramaic,
whereas the hopcal still exists as opposed to the Aramaic
dialects where it disappeared ….Aramaic influence was less felt in the noun
patterns. Tenses and Syntax. The tense system completely parallels that of Galilean
Aramaic and is close to that of Christian-Palestinian and Samaritan Aramaic.
It is also similar to that of Eastern Aramaic. The assumption that the whole
tense system is influenced by Aramaic seems to be inescapable…. Even though
there still is no real comprehensive study on the syntax of Mishnaic Hebrew
and the Western Aramaic dialects, there seems to be a far-reaching
parallelism between them. Vocabulary. It is clear that Aramaic influence is considerable in
this category…. Even in the numerals there are Aramaic elements, e.g., ֹשְתוּת
("a sixth") and תוֹמֶן
("an eighth"). As is well known also the numerals are most
resistant to penetration of foreign elements…. There are also many calques, such as, אָחַז = סָגַר
("he closed"). Similarly the fact that in MH כּוֹס
("goblet") is masculine and שָדֶה
("field") is feminine goes back to Aramaic influence. Quoted from Kutcher 1971 col. 1605-6 |
c. Mishnaic, Middle or Rabbinic Hebrew (MH - see for details Sáenz-Badillos
chapt. 6. For the relation between BH and MH
see Young, Rezetko,
Ehrensvärd
2008 chapt. 9.)
With the destruction of the First
Temple (587 BCE) the scribal schools and royal patronage of writers ended, Jerusalem was
depopulated, the country was ruined and much of the population was exiled to
Babylonia where the common language was Aramaic. Later, a small number of
Babylonian Jews, probably mainly either Aramaic speaking or Hebrew-Aramaic
bilingual, returned to Judah where they provided the leadership, under Persian
imperial patronage, for a slow restoration of Jerusalem and a much reduced
Judah known as the province of Yahud.
When written[56] sources again give us a look in, the linguistic
situation of the country was[57]:
Ø
Greek was
widely spoken in (see map of Hellenistic and Herodian
Cities):
·
Coastal
plain;
·
Decapolis
(Jordan Valley north of Parea, the main Jewish
area in Trans-Jordan);
·
Greek
cities within Jewish areas in Galilee;
·
Greek
cities within Samaritan populated areas of central and northern Samaria;
·
Greek
cities within Idumean areas in the northern Negev i.e. what
was formerly the southern section of the territory of the tribe of Judah.
Ø
Aramaic was the majority
language of the country. Probably it was the only language, other
than Greek, spoken throughout the country except for some areas of Judea
between Lod and Jericho. It seems to have been the language of the upper
classes in Jerusalem; and,
Ø
A Proto-Mishnaic or Proto-Rabbinic Hebrew
(PMH) was probably spoken, along with Aramaic in some areas of
Ø
Late Biblical Hebrew which
was a literary language, along side Greek and Aramaic for the
Jewish population. There were no speakers of this artificial
tongue. This is not dissimilar to the situation of Modern Literary Arabic today or Church Latin in the middle ages.
PMH was undoubtedly the descendent of a koine spoken Hebrew developed when speakers of
different Hebrew dialects were thrown together by the events surrounding the
Babylonian conquest. Quantatively the large majority of these Hebrew speaking
Judeans lived outside Jerusalem and many would have had roots in southern Samaria. This koine underwent major changes due to
three causes:
Ø
natural
developments internal to the language (see Segal, Kutscher 1982, Bendavid);
Ø
the profound influence of spoken Aramaic
in vocabulary, semantics and grammar including inflection; and
Ø
the lesser influence of
Greek, and perhaps after the conversion of the Idumeans,
the Edomite language.
Due to the influence of Aramaic, the following changes
occurred -
Ø
Tenses
As noted above, the Hebrew tense system was clearly headed for a
rationalization. We do not know how the system would have developed in the
absence of overwhelming Aramaic pressure. Perhaps,
instead of being reduced to the modal form we see in Mishnaic Hebrew, the
prefix-form (imperfect) might have developed into something like the modern
spoken Arabic imperfect in which prefixes separate the present, future,
imperfect and modal forms with clarity[58]. However,
the Aramaic verbal system drastically changed,
perhaps under Greek influence, and the Mishnaic Hebrew verbal system changed in
close parallel due to Aramaic influence[59].
Ø
Word order
As mentioned above, the demise of the consecutive tenses freed Hebrew
from the necessity of starting most narrative clauses with a verb. This could
have resulted in any number of new patterns such as a predominant
subject-verb-object order such as is found in Israeli Hebrew and most modern
spoken Arabic dialects. Due to the influence of Aramaic speech habits,
Mishnaic Hebrew developed a sentence syntax mirroring that of Western Aramaic which, among other things, frequently began utterances
with the verb.
Ø
Stress
As noted above, with the loss of the final short vowels, Hebrew and
Aramaic were left with mixed systems of ultimate and penultimate syllabic stress
which were likely to become more uniform in time. Under the sustained influence of Western Aramaic,
Mishnaic Hebrew became predominantly penultimately stressed[60]. In the absence of Aramaic
influence, a shift to a general ultimate stress, or a stress pattern similar to
Classical Arabic, might have been other possible outcomes.
Scholars have, at times, claimed that Hebrew was
completely replaced by Aramaic during this period. However, Segal, Greenfield and Levine have demonstrated that this was not the case. Modern
linguistic study, research on contemporary sources, the Bar Kochba letters in a
popular spoken Hebrew all show that Hebrew was a spoken language of southern
Palestine until at least 135 CE when, in the wake of the Bar Kochba
rebellion,
the Romans evicted or killed the Jewish population in the areas in which Hebrew
was still spoken. At that point, Aramaic and Greek became virtually the
only spoken languages of the whole of what is now Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan
and Israel. An early form of Arabic was already spoken on the desert
fringes of this area.
The
Roman suppression of the first Jewish revolt against Rome (67-70 CE), including
the destruction of Jerusalem led to a social-cultural-religious collapse.
This included the disappearance of the priestly aristocracy and Jewish groups such as
the Sadducees and Essenes.
The earliest Rabbinic literature dates from the period 70-200 CE and it is
written in the spoken Hebrew of the time, often called, after the most famous literary product of the
time, Mishnaic Hebrew.
I will
say a few words about Mishnaic Hebrew.
In 1st century
BCE-first century CE Judea many native Hebrew speakers would have been able to
speak, or at least understand, Aramaic. It must be remembered, that
Aramaic and Hebrew are about as different as Spanish and Italian.
As I mentioned, Mishnaic
Hebrew is very different from Biblical Hebrew - certainly more different
than present day English is from the language of Shakespeare though less
different than that of our language from that of Chaucer.
Mishnaic Hebrew
differed from Biblical Hebrew in:
Ø
stress - predominantly penultimate[61];
Ø syntax and the use of tenses
– both
greatly simplified and restructured on the model of contemporary Western
Aramaic. Particularly noteworthy is the expression of modality. As noted above, the modal imperfects (jussive (PCjus), cohortative (PCcoh)), were increasingly indistinguishable
from the normal (indicative) imperfect. In Mishnaic Hebrew this problem was
solved by using the active participle (קוֹטֵל) as the present/future tense, in
place of the biblical (indicative) imperfect, while the prefix
conjugation ("imperfect") served in the words of Pérez (p. 124; see also p. 108) -
...
the imperfect can be used for expressing the future. Through it, an action that
has not yet taken place can be represented or a series of future events
narrated.... In the main, or independent, clause, clause, the imperfect almost
inevitably has a modal aspect, cohortative (expressing volition), optative
(expressing a wish), jussive (expressing a command), for example:
... If he is God, let him come and
destroy ( וימחה יבוא)
...What can I do (אעשה מה )?
... If they are three, he says, Let us
bless (נברך)
... Who could wipe the dust ( יְגַלֶּה מִי) ...
Ø
the use of של 'of' to replace the construct in many uses - this was probably influnced by the
simiular construction. As Kapeliuk[62]
wrote -
... replacing the possesive construction of the construct
state by an analytic construction, often including the same particle which is
used in creating relative clauses. It is not impossible that the difficulty
inherent in deriving the correct forms of the construct state from the basic
form of the noun, especially in languages with such unstable vocalism as Syriac
or Hebrew.
The difficulty that Kapeliuk hinted at
really only arose in the post-exilic period as shown (using TH as a proxy for earlier, but
unrecorded forms of Hebrew) in the following table.
Table 3
Deriving the Construct State from the Absolute State
More Complex in TH than in EBHP
English |
(c. 850-550 BCE) |
(c. 850 CE) |
'word' |
/daˈbaːr/ |
/dɔˈbɔr/ [dɔːˈvɔːɾ] |
'word of' (construct) |
/dạˌbar/ |
/dәˌbar/ [dәˌvɐːɾ] |
'words' |
/dạbaˈrîm/ |
/dәbɔˈrim/ [dәvɔːˈɾiːm] |
'words of' (construct) |
/dabạˌray/ |
/dibˌrẹ/ [divˌɾẹː] |
'righteousness' |
/ṣạdaˈqâ/ |
/ṣәdɔˈqɔ/ [ṣәðɔːˈqɔː] |
righteousness of' (construct) |
/ṣadạˌqat/ |
/ṣidˌqat/ [ṣiðˌqɐːθ] |
'acts of
righteousness' |
/ṣạdaˈqôt/ |
/ṣәdɔˈqot/ [ṣәðɔːˈqoːθ] |
'acts of
righteousness of' (construct) |
/ṣadạˌqôt/ |
/ṣidˌqot/ [ṣiðˌqoːθ] |
Ø
morphology – standard verbal nouns as well as Aramaic noun forms;
Ø
pronunciation - on the model of contemporary Western Aramaic; and,
Ø
vocabulary – probably preserves many words for work-a-day objects and
activities that were never mentioned in the Bible due to the subjects discussed
in the Bible or, more accurately, not discussed. Examples might include
keveš (preserves); gaḥar (jetty) and zol
(cheapness). It also includes a vast number of Aramaic and Greek words.
Mishnaic Hebrew does not seem to have been used for
poetry, prophecy or high prose. However, what it lacked in grandeur,
grace and dignity it made up in precision.
See -
Consonants that Exist in Modern
Pronunciation but were absent in Hebrew of the First Temple Period
Some
Political, Social and Linguistic Developments in the Pre-Exilic Period c.
1000-586 BCE
2.3 Changes in the Pronunciation Tradition of
Biblical Hebrew Between the Early 6th Century BCE and that Recorded
in the Tiberian Masoretic Tradition (c. 850 CE)
2.4 Medieval Hebrew - Between the Mishnah and the Revival of Hebrew in the Late 19th Century (See for details Sáenz-Badillos chapt. 7)
All forms of Hebrew used in this period consisted, in
varying portions, of 4 elements:
Ø
Biblical Hebrew
Ø
Mishnaic Hebrew
Ø
The writer's native language
Ø
Literary models that the
writer was imitating consciously or unconsciously
2.5 Modern (Israeli) Hebrew (IH)[64]
(a) Foundation Process
Modern Israeli Hebrew (see Berman), generally called either Modern Hebrew or Israeli
Hebrew, started life, in the late 19th century, in the same way as all forms of
Hebrew since the mid-first century CE i.e. a combination of Tiberian pointed
Biblical Hebrew, Mishnaic Hebrew, the influence of the native languages of the
speakers and, for the written form, their literary models. This last element
was of the least importance in fashioning the language. In the case of
Israeli Hebrew, “the influence of the native languages of the speakers”
translated into a profound impact on IH (see below), of the sentence structure
and semantics of Yiddish, Russian and German in that order of importance.
Another way of looking at the process is in terms of
a pidginization - creolization - decreolization process. I.e. -
1. The first generation of Hebrew speakers, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, spoke a pidgin combining:
Ø relexified Yiddish[65] with the resulting Hebrew vocabulary mostly conforming to the semantics of the Yiddish words calqued; and,
Ø elements of literary Hebrew pronounced within the phonetic limitations of Yiddish.
2.
The first generation of native speakers spoke a Hebrew creole. However, they are educated in earlier forms
of literary Hebrew which results in some decreolization.[66]
Box 7
Koineization,
Creole and Decreolization in the
Formation of IH
The modern (Hebrew) language is a
"revived" classical language which now performs all the functions
of a community vernacular. Contact was ENTIRELY between L2 (second
language Hebrew) speakers,
yet developments followed a pattern familiar from koineization (indeed
Blanc 1968:238, in his account of the development of Israeli
Hebrew, refers to the language as a "koine,"...). As pointed out by
Glinert
(1989...),
there has been considerable reduction in the phonological inventory, as
compared to the liturgical language. Like many other Semitic languages,
Biblical Hebrew distinguished the pharyngeal consonants /ħ/
and /ʕ/ and
the velar /x/.
Neither /ħ/
nor /ʕ/ was
acquired by the majority of the (adult) Ashkenazi immigrants, whose first
languages were European. Instead, they merged /ħ/
with /x/, a phone widely found in European languages, and deleted /ʕ/
altogether.... The Sephardic Jews, who
had an Arabic substrate, used the pharyngeals in their Hebrew vernacular. In
the majority, high-status vernacular, the pharyngeals have been leveled out,
despite being widely regarded as correct. Unlike Glinert, Ravid 1995 investigates some of the processes behind these
changes. Her study of language acquisition in Hebrew is extremely revealing
in that it examines the role of children in the establishment of new spoken
norms. She claims that Modern Hebrew is morphologically more
opaque (irregular) than its antecedents because of the "phonological
erosion" which followed its being "revived as a spoken medium using
a new phonological system only loosely related to that of Classical Hebrew,
with entire phonological classes being obliterated" (1995:133). Thus she
finds, among child learners, the development of non-standard reanalyses of
morphological classes which are promoted by the principles of "Transparency,
Simplicity, and Consistency,"
but are constrained by literacy and the "literate propensity towards
marked structures" (1995:162). In the immediate post-1945 period, adult
L2 (second language) Hebrew speakers transmitted the language to children,
who nativized the input (doubtless according to a route similar to that
suggested by Ravid). Significantly ... this stabilization is evidently still
not complete, even though the majority of Israeli children now have native
Hebrew-speaking parents. Quoted from Kerswill and Williams 2000 pp. 70-71 |
We can tackle our discussion of Israeli Hebrew under
three heads:
§ Morphology and Syntax
§ Phonology i.e. sound system
§ Semantics i.e. the range of meanings and associations of
words
(b)
Morphology and Syntax
The word grammar comprehends both morphology (i.e.
study and description of word formation (as inflection, derivation, and
compounding) in language) and syntax i.e. the way in which linguistic elements
(as words) are put together to form constituents (as phrases or clauses).
The morphology of Israeli Hebrew has been little influenced by the native languages of its early speakers[67]. One can generalize and say that:
Ø
in the morphology i.e. the
forms of verbs and nouns Biblical Hebrew predominates (see Tene);
Ø
in the radical
simplification of grammar and a concomitant movement to becoming a more
analytical language Israeli Hebrew follows Mishnaic Hebrew;
Ø
In
the use
of tenses
and the development of rigid rules of subordination
in sentence structure
the influence of Standard
Average European[68] (see Rosen) was predominant[69]. Of interest is the development of new modal forms by
prefixing šɛ \šә \š (שׁ) (or bo
- בוא with
the first person )- to the prefix conjugation[70]. Egs. (from Gilnert § 28.3, 28.6) -
* emphatic imperative - תשכח
שלא 'Don't you forget!'
* jussive - שיזכור 'He should remember / let him remember'; יזכרו
שהם
'They'd better remember'
* cohortative with prefix ש - לך יתן שאני 'Let me give you'; זה את שנזכו 'Let's bear it in mind'
* cohortative with prefix בוא - לך אתן בוא 'Let me give you'; רגע נחשוב
בוא 'Let me think for a moment'
Modern Hebrew has regularized the use of
inherited forms in a way that makes it extremely easy to create new lexemes as
loan-translations from European languages. These include:
Ø
Relational Adjectives
(Arabic term nisba, also written nisbe(h)) i.e.
any word, native or foreign, can be changed into an adjective by adding the
vowel ī represented by the letter yod*;
Ø
perfect participles, really
adjectives, are regularly formed out of any active verbal stem i.e.: qal - pa'ul; piel - mefu'al; hiphil -
muf'al;
Ø
verbal action
nouns are regularly formed out of any verbal stem i.e.: qal - pe'ila; piel - pi'ul; hiphil-haphala;
niphal - hipa'lut; hitpael - hitpa'alut
Ø
any word can be changed into
an abstract noun by adding the suffix ות (út );
Ø
many foreign words can be changed into
Hebrew verbs in the piel – pual - hitpael stems or analytically through
the use of the verb עשה 'asa (to make or do). An
analytical causative has formed using the verb גרם garam (see Berman.);
Ø
wide
use is made of a range of methods to allow adjectives and nouns to be used
adverbially;
Ø
also
widely created are western type compound adjectives
(see Table 6 - Western-type Compound Nouns and Adjectives in Israeli
Hebrew and Arabic (MSA)[71];
Ø
nouns formed from the contraction of two words e.g. kolnoa = "cinema" (kol=voice,
noa=movement).
Ø
Use of inherited
forms to form neologisms
(For a native speaker coining a new word) The semantic factors determining pattern choice are varied. Speakers .tend to look for the most prominent and the most-readily-available pattern they observe in the recent everyday lexicon. A derivation pattern may be used widely enough to function as the default pattern for some category, but even then is still associated with some broad semantic (or at least syntactic) feature. Generally, the broader the semantic category, the more likely is the default pattern to be selected: pucal for passive verbs, hitpacel for all other non-agentive verbs, pi'el for agentive ones; + i for attributive adjectives, meCuCaC for verb related ones; CiCuC for verb-related abstract nominalizations, + ut for other nominalizations; + on for diminutives, + an for agentives/instrumentals, + iya for locatives. There are other patterns, ranked below the default ones on the productivity scale, but nevertheless significantly productive: + ay/ + a'i for agents and agent attributes, CaCiC for + able-type adjectives, etc. Beyond these primary choices, a number of general semantic factors may also play a role, resulting in additional adjustments and shifts. Such modifications usually do not upset the basic semantic classification, at least not at the highest level. Maintaining a degree of transparency for the base within the neologism is one such factor. It is often manifest in preservation of the original consonant clustering of the base. The prominence of a pattern in the new lexicon is determined not only by size, but also by semantic saliency and coherence, as well as by pattern transparency. Often, pattern transparency is enhanced by transparent suffixation. If it is evident that additional suffixation would be semantically redundant, the most economical representation (i.e. minimal suffixation) is chosen. Minor shifts between partially-similar patterns may also be caused by semantic considerations, such as preference for the semantically more salient (or more transparent) pattern, or for the pattern which speakers regard as semantically unmarked. Frequency of commonly used alternates". (Bolozky p. 193)