DOCSLIB.ORG

ENCYCLOPEDIA of HEBREW LANGUAGE and LINGUISTICS Volume 3 P–Z

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ENCYCLOPEDIA of HEBREW LANGUAGE and LINGUISTICS Volume 3 P–Z ENCYCLOPEDIA OF HEBREW LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTICS Volume 3 P–Z General Editor Geoffrey Khan Associate Editors Shmuel Bolokzy Steven E. Fassberg Gary A. Rendsburg Aaron D. Rubin Ora R. Schwarzwald Tamar Zewi LEIDEN • BOSTON 2013 © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 Table of Contents Volume One Introduction ........................................................................................................................ vii List of Contributors ............................................................................................................ ix Transcription Tables ........................................................................................................... xiii Articles A-F ......................................................................................................................... 1 Volume Two Transcription Tables ........................................................................................................... vii Articles G-O ........................................................................................................................ 1 Volume Three Transcription Tables ........................................................................................................... vii Articles P-Z ......................................................................................................................... 1 Volume Four Transcription Tables ........................................................................................................... vii Index ................................................................................................................................... 1 © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 syntax: modern hebrew 707 Talmudic literature, ed. by Mena™em Zevi Kadd- Shim’on Sharvit, xx–xxx. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan ari and Shim’on Sharvit, 169–174. Ramat-Gan: University press. Bar-Ilan University press. Segal, Moshe H. 1927. A grammar of Mishnaic ——. 1991. Post-Biblical Hebrew syntax and seman- Hebrew. Oxford: Clarendon. tics: Diachronic studies in Hebrew (in Hebrew). ——. 1928. “On the structure of oath and vow 2 vols. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press. statements in Hebrew” (in Hebrew). Lłšonénu ——. 1998. “On deontic modality in Mishnaic 1:215–227. Hebrew”. Studies in Mishnaic Hebrew (Scripta ——. 1932. “The structure of conditional clauses” Hierosolymitana 37), ed. by Moshe Bar-Asher and (in Hebrew). Lłšonénu 4:191–211. Steven E. Fassberg, 197–217. Jerusalem: Magnes. ——. 1936. A grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew (in Khan, Geoffrey. 2006. “Some aspects of the copula Hebrew). Tel-Aviv: Dvir. in North West Semitic”. Biblical Hebrew in its Sharvit, Shim’on. 1998. “Infinival sentences in Mish- Northwest Semitic setting: Typological and his- naic Hebrew: A syntactic and semantic study”. torical perspectives, ed. by Steven E. Fassberg and Studies in Mishnaic Hebrew (Scripta Hierosolymi- Avi Hurvitz, 155–176. Jerusalem: Magnes and tana 37), ed. by Moshe Bar-Asher and Steven E. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Fassberg, 336–348. Jerusalem: Magnes. Kutscher, Eduard Yechezkel. 1962. “The language ——. 2008. Studies in Mishnaic Hebrew (in Hebrew). of the Hebrew and Aramaic letters of Bar-Kose∫a Jerusalem: Bialik Institute. and its generation, second article: The Hebrew let- Waldman, Nahum M. 1989. The recent study of ter” (in Hebrew). Lłšonénu 26:7–23. Hebrew: A survey of the literature with selected ——. 1982. A history of the Hebrew language. bibliography. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Ed. by Raphael Kutscher. Jerusalem: Magnes and Press. Leiden: Brill. Kurzon, Dennis. 1980. “Iconic syntax in rabbinical Moshe Azar codes”. The Jewish Law Annuals 3:71–83. (University of Haifa, Emeritus) Mishor, Mordechay. 1983. “The tense system in Tannaitic Hebrew” (in Hebrew). PhD dissertation, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Moreshet, Mena™em. 1983. “The predicate that pre- Syntax: Modern Hebrew cedes two subjects in Rabbinic Hebrew with refer- ences to Modern Hebrew” (in Hebrew). Hebrew language studies presented to professor Ze’ev Ben- 1. Introduction £ayyim, ed. by Moshe Bar-Asher, Aron Dotan, Gad B. Sarfatti, and David Téné, 359–378. Jeru- Modern Hebrew is a fusion language, includ- salem: Magnes. in Mish- ing elements from all the historical layers of את Oron, Yokheved. 1989. “Nominative naic Hebrew” (in Hebrew). Studies in the Hebrew the language. To quote Ben-£ayyim (1992:59), language and the Talmudic literature, ed. by “nothing in it has died and so there exist— Mena™em Zevi Kaddari and Shim’on Sharvit, and are in use—different chronological layers 27–34. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press. Peretz, Yitzhaq. 1967. The relative clause (in side by side, not on top of one another as in Hebrew). Tel-Aviv: Dvir. languages with a historic continuity”. How- ´in our ever, very frequently, in cases in which A אַל Qimron, Elisha. 1983. “The particle ancient sources” (in Hebrew). Hebrew Language succeeds A of an earlier layer of Hebrew, both studies presented to professor Ze’ev Ben-£ayyim, ed. by Moshe Bar-Asher, Aaron Dotan, Gad B. A and A´ coexist, though differentiated either Sarfatti, and David Téné. Jerusalem: Magnes. functionally or stylistically. In addition, apart ——. 1992. “Considerations on modal tenses from recent grammaticalizations and pragma- in Mishnaic Hebrew” (in Hebrew). Lłšonénu 55:89–96. tizations, there are also inherited constructions Sarfatti, Gad B. 1980. “Determination of fixed that are reinterpreted under the influence of phrases formed by means of the construct state in similar constructions found in the contact- Mishnaic Hebrew” (in Hebrew). Studies in Hebrew languages to which Hebrew speakers/writers and Semitic languages dedicated to the memory of Prof. Eduard Yechezkel Kutscher, ed. by Gad B. have been exposed over the more than one Sarfatti, Pin™as Artzi, Jonas C. Greenfield, and hundred years of its existence, especially Slavo- Mena™em Zevi Kaddari, 140–154. Ramat-Gan: Yiddish at the revival time and English in more Bar-Ilan University Press. recent decades. ——. “The prosodic function of the definite arti- cle in Rabbinic Hebrew” (in Hebrew). Lłšonénu Unlike morphology, the syntax of Mod- 44:185–201. ern Hebrew is dynamic and subject to rapid ——. 1989. “Definiteness in noun-adjective phrases changes. The microsyntax (‘internal form’) of in Rabbinic Hebrew” (in Hebrew). Studies in Modern Hebrew is Semitic (Goldenberg 1996), the Hebrew language and the Talmudic litera- ture: Dedicated to the memory of Dr. Mena™em though there are a few scholars who con- Moreshet, ed. by Mena™em Zevi Kaddari and tend that it is a distinct Europanized language © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 708 syntax: modern hebrew different from its classical Semitic origin (Rosén constructs the plural is suffixed to the genitive suggested that it be renamed ‘Israeli Hebrew’). noun, at the end of the construct form, and not bar בר מצוות ,.Yet, the macrosyntax displays strong influence to the construct head noun, e.g of European languages. Its Semitic essence is mißvot ‘parties of Bar-Mitzva’, instead of nor- bne mißva. In contemporary בני מצווה clearly demonstrated by the use of the pure mative יותר/פחות nominal clause (lacking a copula; Nominal Hebrew the comparative determiners Clause), word order of determinant noun co-occur occasionally as superlatives (possibly before determiner ( Word Order), agreement English-induced). As a result, the definite article between noun and adjective ( Agreement), is not attached to the adjective as normatively and the profuse use of the genitive construc- required, but is rather preposed as a definite היא אחת ,.tion of construct state nominals ( Construct marker of the entire phrase, e.g hi a≤at ha-«a≤qaniyot השחקניות היותר מוכשרות -State). Unlike some other spoken Semitic lan guages (e.g., neo-Aramaic and neo-Ethiopian ha-yoter muxšarot ‘she is one of the most tal- languages), Modern Hebrew still preserves the ented actresses’. inherited (Hebrew, Semitic) patterns of verbs A deviation from the classical order of deter- and nouns. Synthetic verb and noun patterns, minate before determiner and from agreement however, are employed in complementary dis- in definiteness occurs in a very limited number tribution with analytic constructions comprised of cases, crucially where the determiner is השחקנית ,.of a semantically depleted verb or noun and a interpreted as a ‘semantic prefix’, e.g -ha-«a≤qanit ha-safeq הספק-ילדה ספק-אישה nominal adjunct carrying the lexical burden of the expression (Halevy 2000b). Transitiv- yalda safeq-±iša ‘the semi-child semi-woman -ha-heqšer ha-≤uß ההקשר החוץ-לשוני ;’ization of unergative/unaccusative ( Unac- actress cusative) verbs is spreading within present-day lešoni ‘the extra-linguistic context’. Hebrew, while, on the other hand, there is a The definite article is encoded in the voca- dan דן היקר ,’ha-more ‘Teacher המורה ,.remarkable expansion of datival constructions tive, e.g ( Dative). ha-yaqar ‘Dear Dan’. In colloquial language, Modern Hebrew is susceptible to rapid pro- however, undetermined vocatives prevail, too גברת ,.cesses of change not only because of its inten- (possibly Yiddish/English-induced), e.g מותק, ;’nehag ‘driver נהג ;’sive exposure to European languages, but also gveret ‘Miss, Lady -moteq, ma qara? ‘Sweetie, what hap מה קרה? due to the special circumstances of its relatively recent revival as a medium of everyday and pened?’. In the case of inalienable nouns (nouns spoken language confronting new semantic and of appurtenance) the definite
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Structural Expectations in Chinese Relative Clause Comprehension
    StructuralExpectationsinChineseRelativeClause Comprehension ZhongChen,KyleGrove,andJohnHale CornellUniversity 1. Introduction Relative clauses (RC) are among the most well-studied constructions in the field of psycholinguis- tics. A wide variety of work explores a robust processing asymmetry such that subject relatives (SRs) are easier to process than object relatives (ORs). For example, English shows a subject advantage, as demonstrated by a number of studies involving different measures including: self-paced reading (King & Just, 1991), eye-tracking (Traxler, Morris & Seely, 2002), ERP (King & Kutas, 1995), fMRI (Just, Carpenter, Keller, Eddy & Thulborn, 1996); and PET (Stromswold, Caplan, Alpert & Rauch, 1996). A robust finding in the literature suggests that subject preference seems to be a universal processing phenomenon in RCs. Some pieces of evidence come from Dutch (Frazier, 1987), French (Frauenfelder, Segui & Mehler, 1980), German (Schriefers, Friederici & Kuhn,¨ 1995), Japanese (Miyamoto & Naka- mura, 2003) and Korean (Kwon, Polinsky & Kluender, 2006). In order to account for the universal processing pattern of RCs, several theories are proposed, such as: WORD ORDER (Bever, 1970; MacDonald & Christiansen, 2002), the ACCESSIBILITY HIER- ARCHY (Keenan & Comrie, 1977), EXPERIENCE/FREQUENCY-BASED ACCOUNTS (Mitchell, Cuetos, Corley & Brysbaert, 1995; Hale, 2001), STRUCTURE-BASED APPROACHES (O’Grady, 1997; Hawkins, 2004) and WORKING MEMORY (Gibson, 2000; Lewis & Vasishth, 2005). Chinese RCs are valuable in testing those theories and
    [Show full text]
  • Polancec, the Invariant Relativizer in Contemporary Non-Standard Croatian
    Jurica Polančec (University of Zagreb) The invariant relativizer in contemporary non-standard Croatian In this talk, we will present the invariant relativizer in contemporary Croatian with an empha- sis on non-standard language. We will briefly introduce the Croatian invariant relativizer and its four forms (što, šta, kaj, ča). These four relativizers originate in separate Croatian dialects (što and šta in Štokavian, kaj in Kajkavian, and ča in Čakavian). Regardless of the dialect, the forms are functionally equivalent and have the same source in their respective dialects (the nom/acc case of the what pronoun). In contemporary language, they differ in their sociolinguistic status: only što is standard; što, šta and kaj are used in everyday informal Croatian, which is close to the standard, but fea- tures some non-codified elements and is often influenced by dialects (Langston & Peti-Stantić 2014: 30, cf. van Marle 1997: 13–17). The form kaj is geographically confined to Northern Croatia including the capital Zagreb. We will discuss in some detail the rise of the form kaj from the dialectal status. We will also show that the form što, when used in the standard, is typical of more formal and elaborate registers, in particular the language of literature. As for the other registers of standard Croatian, such as journalistic or scientific, the invariant relativizer often figures as a mere substitute for the relative pronoun (Kordić 1995: 164). Cases in which the invariant rela- tivizer is at the same time a feature of everyday informal language as well as of the rather for- mal written registers of standard language are quite unusual.
    [Show full text]
  • BORE ASPECTS OP MODERN GREEK SYLTAX by Athanaaios Kakouriotis a Thesis Submitted Fox 1 the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Of
    BORE ASPECTS OP MODERN GREEK SYLTAX by Athanaaios Kakouriotis A thesis submitted fox1 the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of the University of London School of Oriental and African Studies University of London 1979 ProQuest Number: 10731354 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a com plete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest ProQuest 10731354 Published by ProQuest LLC(2017). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States C ode Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346 II Abstract The present thesis aims to describe some aspects of Mod Greek syntax.It contains an introduction and five chapters. The introduction states the purpose for writing this thesis and points out the fact that it is a data-oriented rather, chan a theory-^oriented work. Chapter one deals with the word order in Mod Greek. The main conclusion drawn from this chapter is that, given the re­ latively rich system of inflexions of Mod Greek,there is a freedom of word order in this language;an attempt is made to account for this phenomenon in terms of the thematic structure. of the sentence and PSP theory. The second chapter examines the clitics;special attention is paid to clitic objects and some problems concerning their syntactic relations .to the rest of the sentence are pointed out;the chapter ends with the tentative suggestion that cli­ tics might be taken care of by the morphologichi component of the grammar• Chapter three deals with complementation;this a vast area of study and-for this reason the analysis is confined to 'oti1, 'na* and'pu' complement clauses; Object Raising, Verb Raising and Extraposition are also discussed in this chapter.
    [Show full text]
  • 'Undergoer Voice in Borneo: Penan, Punan, Kenyah and Kayan
    Undergoer Voice in Borneo Penan, Punan, Kenyah and Kayan languages Antonia SORIENTE University of Naples “L’Orientale” Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology-Jakarta This paper describes the morphosyntactic characteristics of a few languages in Borneo, which belong to the North Borneo phylum. It is a typological sketch of how these languages express undergoer voice. It is based on data from Penan Benalui, Punan Tubu’, Punan Malinau in East Kalimantan Province, and from two Kenyah languages as well as secondary source data from Kayanic languages in East Kalimantan and in Sawarak (Malaysia). Another aim of this paper is to explore how the morphosyntactic features of North Borneo languages might shed light on the linguistic subgrouping of Borneo’s heterogeneous hunter-gatherer groups, broadly referred to as ‘Penan’ in Sarawak and ‘Punan’ in Kalimantan. 1. The North Borneo languages The island of Borneo is home to a great variety of languages and language groups. One of the main groups is the North Borneo phylum that is part of a still larger Greater North Borneo (GNB) subgroup (Blust 2010) that includes all languages of Borneo except the Barito languages of southeast Kalimantan (and Malagasy) (see Table 1). According to Blust (2010), this subgroup includes, in addition to Bornean languages, various languages outside Borneo, namely, Malayo-Chamic, Moken, Rejang, and Sundanese. The languages of this study belong to different subgroups within the North Borneo phylum. They include the North Sarawakan subgroup with (1) languages that are spoken by hunter-gatherers (Penan Benalui (a Western Penan dialect), Punan Tubu’, and Punan Malinau), and (2) languages that are spoken by agriculturalists, that is Òma Lóngh and Lebu’ Kulit Kenyah (belonging respectively to the Upper Pujungan and Wahau Kenyah subgroups in Ethnologue 2009) as well as the Kayan languages Uma’ Pu (Baram Kayan), Busang, Hwang Tring and Long Gleaat (Kayan Bahau).
    [Show full text]
  • BCGL13, 16-18.12.2020 1 the Syntax of Complementizers
    BCGL13, 16-18.12.2020 The syntax of complementizers: a revised version Anna Roussou University of Patras ([email protected]) BCGL 13, The syntax and semantics of clausal complementation 16-18.12.2020 [joint work with Rita Manzini] 1. Setting the scene A clarification: why ‘a revised version’ Roussou (1994), The syntax of complementisers – the investigation of three basic constructions: (a) factive complements and extraction, Greek oti vs factive pu – a definite C (b) that-complements and subject extraction, an agreeing null C (c) na-complements in Greek and the subject dependency (control vs obviation) • Assumptions back then: -- that is an expletive element (Lasnik & Saito 1984, Law 1991) – complementizers in general are expletives -- But in some cases, as in factives, they may bear features for familiarity (Hegarty 1992) or definiteness, or license a definite operator (Melvold 1991) [that-factives are weak islands, pu- factives are strong islands] Some questions a) What is a complement clause? b) What is a complementizer? c) What is the role of the complementizer? d) How is complementation achieved if there is no complementizer? Some potential answers to the questions above a) complement clauses are nominal (the traditional grammarian view): mainly objects, but also subjects; it is a complement or a relative (?) b) not so clear: the lexical item that introduces a clause or the syntactic head C (Bresnan 1972) – in the latter reading, C can be realized by a variety of elements including conjunctions (that, oti, pu, che, etc.), prepositions
    [Show full text]
  • Where Oh Where Have the Complementizers Gone?
    Where Oh Where Have The Complementizers Gone? Jason Ostrove [email protected] Senior Honor's Thesis, April 1st, 2013 Jason Ostrove 1 Table of Contents Section 1 Irish Complementizers 5 1.1 Introduction to Irish Complementizers 5 1.2 Proposed Evidence that these Elements are Complementizers 6 1.3 Evidence Against Analyzing Irish Complementizers as C 9 1.4 The Irish Morpheme -R 10 1.5 Analyzing Irish Complementizers with a Relative Clause Structure 16 Section 2 Irish Declarative Complementation 18 2.1 The Irish Element Go 18 2.2 Irish Relative Clauses 23 2.3 The Syntax of the Relative 28 Section 3 Irish Negation 33 3.1 Matrix Negation 34 3.2 Embedded Negation 36 3.3 The Syntax of Irish Negation 38 Section 4 Lingering Issues 41 Section 5 Conclusion 44 Work Cited 45 Jason Ostrove 2 Acknowledgements If you had told me as I was starting my freshman year that someday I would write a 45 page paper, I would have laughed at you. If you had told freshman me that I would actually have a blast writing a 45 page paper, I would have called you a liar. But this is exactly what happened; I wrote this 45 page paper (and a lot more pages to produce the document here), and I cannot believe how much fun I had writing it. As I sit here reflecting at the moment when my career is about to begin as I head to graduate school, I can truly say that none of this would have been possible, neither this document nor the fun I had writing it, without my advisor, Stephanie Harves.
    [Show full text]
  • RELATIVE CLAUSES in CROW Randolph Graczyk University of Chicago
    RELATIVE CLAUSES IN CROW Randolph Graczyk University of Chicago The discussion of relative clauses in this paper will proceed from description to analysis.1 In the first four sections I will treat lexical vs. non- lexical heads, relativizers, final determiners and head markers in relative clauses. In section five I will discuss several of the theoretical issues involved in the analysis of Crow relative clauses: are they internally or externally headed? What is the syntactic status of the relativizers? Why is the head noun marked with the indefinite specific determiner? 1. Lexical vs. Non-Lexical Heads Based on considerations of form, there are two basic types of relative clauses in Crow: lexically headed and non-lexically headed. (1) and (2) are examples of lexically headed relative clauses: (1) [hinne bachee-m ak -6oppiia-sh] is -bilee this man -DET REL-smoke -DET 3POS-fire awa -ss -dee-m earth-GOAL-go -OS 'this man who was smoking's fire was burning down' (Uuwat 19) In (1) bacheem is the head noun, marked as such by the indefinite specific determiner -m. Ak- is a relativizer that conveys 1) that the head nominal is the subject of the relative clause, and 2) that the subject is animate, and--in the overwhelming majority of cases--an agent. The demonstrative hinne and the final definite determiner -sh are typical noun phrase constituents. The noun phrase hinne bacheem ak6oppiiash functions in the matrix clause as the possessor of isbilee. (2) [hawata-m Akbaatatdia one -DET God 490 1 9 9 0 M A L C Relative Clauses in Crow 491 balee-heela-ss -huu -hche-wia-sh] dii-k lB.PL-midst-GOAL-come-CAUS-MOD-DET 2B -DECL 'you are the one God intended to send into our midst' (Lk 9:20) In (2) hawatam, marked with the determiner -m, is the head noun, and there is no relativizer.
    [Show full text]
  • “Greek Wisdom”? on the Meaning of Hokhmat Yevanit
    How much Greek in “Greek Wisdom”? On the Meaning of Hokhmat Yevanit How much Greek in “Greek Wisdom”? On the Meaning of Hokhmat Yevanit by Eliyahu Krakowski In the medieval controversies over the study of philosophy, one of the major points of contention was the Talmudic prohibition againsthokhmat yevanit. Modern historians, who are generally well-disposed toward the Maimonidean proponents of philosophy (often at the expense of the anti-rationalists), nevertheless often assume that the anti-rationalists had the better of this particular argument. The Maimonidean defense of philosophy against the Talmudic stricture, if not an outright distortion, was at least a forced explanation.[1] However, the truth seems to be the opposite—it was not the defenders of philosophy who “redefined” the Talmudic passages, it was philosophy’s opponents. The success of this redefinition indeed put the proponents of philosophy on the defensive, but without good reason. To demonstrate this thesis, we will briefly consider the Talmudic evidence, and then turn to the history of the interpretation of the phrasehokhmat yevanit. Most contemporary scholars who have discussed the Talmudic passages have concluded, with varying degrees of certainty, that hokhmat yevanit incorporates Greek philosophy. Gerald Blidstein, noting the indeterminacy of the sources nevertheless concludes, “Though no Talmudic source indicates what is included in this wisdom, it is likely that literature, rhetoric, and philosophy are what is meant, while language instruction in a matter of further
    [Show full text]
  • The Consolidation of Şat As an Invariable Relativizer in the History Of
    The consolidation of þat as an invariable relativizer in 1 the history of English Cristina Suárez, University of the Balearic Islands Two different invariable relative markers were in use in early English, þe and þat/that . This paper aims to answer the question of how and why þat replaced þe as an invariable relativizer in Middle English. To this end I analyse the distribution of invariable relativizers in the relevant periods of the English language (from Old English to late Middle English) as represented in The Helsinki Corpus of English Texts . The following variables are examined: (i) the syntactic function of the relativizer, which determines the progression and recession of relativization strategies, following the Accessibility Hierarchy proposed by Keenan and Comrie (1977); (ii) the type of relative clause (whether restrictive or non-restrictive), which conditions the distribution of relativization strategies in particular; (iii) the type of NP antecedent, which also plays a role in the selection of relativizer; (iv) the text type; and (v) dialect. The analysis reveals that þat/that starts to replace þe very slowly, occupying the environments less favoured by þe , that is, those of object and resuming inanimate antecedents. Moreover, I will show that this slow, progressive introduction suddenly evolves into a dramatic change, with þat quickly becoming the only invariable relativizer available. 1. Introduction Different relativization strategies have coexisted over the course of the English language. These include the pronominal relativization strategy, the zero relativization strategy and the invariable relativization strategy. 1 An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 15 International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, Munich , August 2008 .
    [Show full text]
  • Parsha Insights Talmud Tips
    SHABBAT PARSHAT TETZAVEH 11 ADAR 1 5779 – FEBRUARY 16 2019 VOL. 26 NO. 20 PARSHA INSIGHTS by Rabbi Yaakov Asher Sinclair Being a Professional Human Being “You shall make vestments of sanctity for Aharon your brother for glory and splendor.” (28:2) was in a music store the other day. In the back of the of Mozart is an uncouth slob with the manners and the store I heard someone playing the piano. Of course it sensitivity of an elephant. I wasn't a real piano. Those are a rare breed nowadays, “You shall make vestments of sanctity for Aharon your brother rarely spotted outside the likes of Carnegie Hall. This was for glory and splendor.” an amazingly life-like electric counterfeit. It sounded amazing. The music coming from this piano was really beautiful and I turned to see who it was that was coaxing “Glory” was due to Aharon and his descendants by the such divine sounds from this electric beast. My eyes mere fact of their lineage, even though their abilities were alighted on a guy in his thirties, somewhat overweight, given by G-d. “Splendor” comes to a person only through with a blue shadow of a two-day beard around his jowls, his own effort and accomplishment. and dark rings under his eyes. The contrast between him and his music was to me — to say the least — quite Rav Shlomo Wolbe said that the definition of a Jew is “a arresting. As I was walking to the back of the store I said professional human being”.
    [Show full text]
  • When Stylistic and Social Effects Fail to Converge: a Variation Study of Complementizer Choice
    Laura Staum QP 2, May 2005 When Stylistic and Social Effects Fail to Converge: a variation study of complementizer choice 1. The Question Labov observes in The Social Stratification of English in New York City that “in general, a variant that is used by most New Yorkers in formal styles is also the variant that is used most often in all styles by speakers who are ranked higher on an objective socio- economic scale” (1982, 279). This observation, that stylistic effects tend to mirror social effects, has been considered a guiding principle of variationist sociolinguistics for long enough that when a variable shows evidence of stylistic conditioning, we may expect or even assume that social conditioning is also present. Indeed, there are good theoretical reasons to believe that this relationship is anything but a coincidence; the exploration of this and related ideas has led to a much deeper understanding of the nature of social meaning, among other things. However, this relationship between stylistic and social conditioning is not a logical necessity, but depends crucially on the specific social meanings associated with the variables in question, and if the mirroring relationship does not always hold, then we need to account somehow for the existence of a set of variables that have so far been largely ignored in the literature. Because the positive relationship between social and stylistic stratification has already been demonstrated for several different types of variables, and we have no reason to believe that it does not hold in these cases, the most straightforward way to further investigate this relationship is to look for evidence of new, un- or under-studied variables for which it does not hold.
    [Show full text]
  • The Valediction of Moses
    Forschungen zum Alten Testament Edited by Konrad Schmid (Zürich) · Mark S. Smith (Princeton) Hermann Spieckermann (Göttingen) · Andrew Teeter (Harvard) 145 Idan Dershowitz The Valediction of Moses A Proto-Biblical Book Mohr Siebeck Idan Dershowitz: born 1982; undergraduate and graduate training at the Hebrew University, following several years of yeshiva study; 2017 elected to the Harvard Society of Fellows; currently Chair of Hebrew Bible and Its Exegesis at the University of Potsdam. orcid.org/0000-0002-5310-8504 Open access sponsored by the Julis-Rabinowitz Program on Jewish and Israeli Law at the Harvard Law School. ISBN 978-3-16-160644-1 / eISBN 978-3-16-160645-8 DOI 10.1628/978-3-16-160645-8 ISSN 0940-4155 / eISSN 2568-8359 (Forschungen zum Alten Testament) The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2021 Mohr Siebeck Tübingen, Germany. www.mohrsiebeck.com This work is licensed under the license “Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Inter- national” (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). A complete Version of the license text can be found at: https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/. Any use not covered by the above license is prohibited and illegal without the permission of the publisher. The book was printed on non-aging paper by Gulde Druck in Tübingen, and bound by Buch- binderei Spinner in Ottersweier. Printed in Germany. Acknowledgments This work would not have been possible without the generosity of my friends, family, and colleagues. The Harvard Society of Fellows provided the ideal environment for this ven- ture.Atatimeinwhichacademiaisbecomingincreasinglyriskaverse,theSociety remains devoted to supporting its fellows’ passion projects.
    [Show full text]