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 978-90-04-17642-3 100 phonology: biblical hebrew the basis of the children’s productions, there is Echols, C., and E. Newport. 1992. “The role of evidence that it also affects their perception. stress and position in determining first words”. Language Acquisition 2:189–220. Gerken, L.-A. 1994. “A metrical template of chil- References dren’s weak syllable omission from multisyllabic Adam, Galit. 2002. “From variable to optimal gram- words”. Journal of Child Language 21:565–584. mar: Evidence from language acquisition and Grunwell, Pamela. 1982. Clinical phonology. Lon- language change”. PhD dissertation, Tel-Aviv don: Croom Helm. University. de Lacy, Paul. 2006. Markedness: Reduction and Adam, Galit and Outi Bat-El. 2008a. “The trochaic preservation in phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge bias is universal: Evidence from Hebrew”. Lan- University Press. guage Acquisition and Development: Proceedings of Lindblom, B. 1986. “Phonetic universals in vowel GALA 2007, ed. by A. Gavarró and M. J. Freitas, systems”. Experimental Phonology, ed. by J. Ohala 12–24. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars. and J. Jager, 13–44. Orlando, Florida: Academic. ——. 2008b. “Segmental effects on syllable selection: Nespor, Marina, Marcela Peña, and Jacques Mehler. Evidence from Hebrew”. Language Acquisition 2003. “On the different roles of vowels and con- and Development: Proceedings of GALA 2007, sonants in speech processing and language acquisi- ed. by A. Gavarró and M. J. Freitas, 1–11. New- tion”. Lingue e Linguaggio 2:203–229. castle: Cambridge Scholars. Schwartz, R. 1988. “Phonological factors in early ——. 2009. “When do universal preferences emerge lexical acquisition”. The Emergent Lexicon: The in language development? The acquisition of Child’s Development of a Linguistic Vocabulary, Hebrew stress”. Brill’s Annual of Afroasiatic Lan- ed. by Michael Smith and John Locke, 185–222. guages and Linguistics 1:1–28. San Diego: Academic. Adi-Bensaid, Limor. 2006. “The Prosodic Develop- Tubul-Lavy, Gila. 2005. “The phonology of Hebrew ment of Hebrew-Speaking Hearing Impaired Chil- speaking dyspraxic children” [in Hebrew]. PhD dren”. PhD dissertation, Tel-Aviv University. dissertation, Tel-Aviv University. Adi-Bensaid, Limor, and Outi Bat-El. 2004. “The development of the prosodic word in the speech of Outi Bat-El a hearing impaired child with a cochlear implant (Tel-Aviv University) device”. Journal of Multilingual Communication Disorders 2:187–206. Adi-Bensaid, Limor, and Gila Tubul-Lavy. 2009. Phonology: Biblical Hebrew “Consonant-free words: Evidence from Hebrew speaking children with cochlear implants”. Clini- cal Linguistics and Phonetics 23:122–132. Introduction Bat-El, Outi. 2005. “The emergence of the trochaic foot in Hebrew hypocoristics”. Phonology 22:1–29. This entry treats the phonology of Biblical ——. 2009. “Harmonic domains and synchro- nization in typically and atypically developing Hebrew, though on occasion we will refer to Hebrew-speaking children”. Language Sciences data from beyond the domain of BH per se. The 31:117–135. methodology utilized here is that of historical lin- Ben-David, Avivit. 2001. “Language acquisition and guistics, especially since the relevant information phonological theory: Universal and variable pro- cesses across children and cross languages” (in covers more than a thousand years (for an earlier Hebrew), PhD dissertation, Tel-Aviv University. treatment, on which the current essay is largely Ben-David, Avivit, and Ruth Berman. 2007. “Israeli based, see Rendsburg 1997; for amplification of Hebrew speech acquisition”. The International Guide to Speech Acquisition, ed. by Sharynee some of the topics treated herein, see Kutscher McLeod, 437–456. 1982:12–30; for theoretical approaches to the Clements, G. 1990. “The role of the sonority cycle subject Phonology, Generative and Phonol- in core syllabification”. Papers in Laboratory Pho- ogy, Optimality Theory: Biblical Hebrew; for a nology I: Between the Grammar and Physics of Speech, ed. by John Kingston and Mary Beck- synchronic description of the Tiberian tradition man, 283–333. Cambridge: Cambridge University of Hebrew on the basis of medieval sources Press. Tiberian Reading Tradition). Demuth, Katherine. 1996. “The prosodic structure The subject of Biblical Hebrew phonology of early words”. Signal to syntax: Bootstrapping from speech to grammar in early acquisition, ed. is complicated by the fact that ancient Hebrew by J. Morgan and K. Demuth, 171–184. Mahwah, was written with a 22–consonant alphabet— New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. though as we shall see, Hebrew possessed more Demuth, Katherine, and Jane Fee. 1995. Mini- than 22 consonantal phonemes, so that some mal words in early phonological development. Manuscript, Brown University and Dalhhousie of the graphemes (letters) served double duty. University. Moreover, vowels were not represented in the © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 phonology: biblical hebrew 101 writing system (except to some extent via the the ancient Hebrew period; (c) certain sound use of matres lectionis), though, presumably, shifts may be dated to the post-biblical period, any reader of an ancient Hebrew composition as can be determined from the transcriptions would have known how to recite the text on of Hebrew into Greek and Latin; and (d) one the basis of an oral reading tradition passed cannot be certain that the Greek and Latin from tradent to tradent (especially for literary transcriptions of Hebrew represent the same works, such as those which eventually entered reading tradition as the one underlying the the biblical canon). Tiberian Masora. The first three of these issues Eventually, Jewish scholars, known as the are addressed below, while the fourth one .mås< òrå< , should be kept in mind when relevant ָמ ָסוֹרה Masoretes (from the word meaning either ‘tradition’ or ‘counting’ [see The picture presented here is further compli- Dotan 2007:614–615]), created a system of cated by the fact that several reading traditions vowel (along with accent and punctuation) of Biblical Hebrew besides the Tiberian one notation during the 8th–9th centuries C.E. In existed at later periods, including the Babylo- fact, there were three main systems of vocaliza- nian ( Vocalization, Babylonian), Palestinian tion, though in this article we will for the most ( Vocalization, Palestinian) and Samaritan part focus on the Tiberian system, which in ( Samaritan Hebrew: Biblical Hebrew). The time emerged as the dominant one in Jewish Samaritans, who developed as an offshoot of society. Judaism c. 500 B.C.E., also possess the first five The question remains as to how accurately books of the Hebrew Bible (the Torah or Penta- the oral reading tradition of the biblical text teuch) as canonical. They have an independent and the Masoretic transcription thereof reflects reading tradition for their Scripture, though in ancient Hebrew. That is to say, the Masoretic this entry we refrain from entering into these Text (i.e., the traditional text of the Bible) differences. dates to c. 850 C.E. and reflects the manner in which Biblical Hebrew was pronounced at that 1. Consonants time. But how conservative, i.e., how ancient, was the reading tradition of the readers for the At least 29 consonantal phonemes are trace- centuries before c. 850 C.E.? In other words, able to Proto-Semitic (comparison with other does the Masoretic Text reflect Hebrew as it families in the Afroasiatic phylum suggests was pronounced five hundred years earlier, one the possibility of still other phonemes). The thousand years earlier, even fifteen hundred most ancient Hebrew attested retained 25 of years earlier? In some cases, we can answer this these; one local variety of Israelian Hebrew question, but no definitive conclusion can be retained one other phoneme; and the remaining reached.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Yiddish Diction in Singing
    UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones May 2016 Yiddish Diction in Singing Carrie Suzanne Schuster-Wachsberger University of Nevada, Las Vegas Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/thesesdissertations Part of the Language Description and Documentation Commons, Music Commons, Other Languages, Societies, and Cultures Commons, and the Theatre and Performance Studies Commons Repository Citation Schuster-Wachsberger, Carrie Suzanne, "Yiddish Diction in Singing" (2016). UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones. 2733. http://dx.doi.org/10.34917/9112178 This Dissertation is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by Digital Scholarship@UNLV with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Dissertation in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/or on the work itself. This Dissertation has been accepted for inclusion in UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones by an authorized administrator of Digital Scholarship@UNLV. For more information, please contact [email protected]. YIDDISH DICTION IN SINGING By Carrie Schuster-Wachsberger Bachelor of Music in Vocal Performance Syracuse University 2010 Master of Music in Vocal Performance Western Michigan University 2012
    [Show full text]
  • The Ogham-Runes and El-Mushajjar
    c L ite atu e Vo l x a t n t r n o . o R So . u P R e i t ed m he T a s . 1 1 87 " p r f ro y f r r , , r , THE OGHAM - RUNES AND EL - MUSHAJJAR A D STU Y . BY RICH A R D B URTO N F . , e ad J an uar 22 (R y , PART I . The O ham-Run es g . e n u IN tr ating this first portio of my s bj ect, the - I of i Ogham Runes , have made free use the mater als r John collected by Dr . Cha les Graves , Prof. Rhys , and other students, ending it with my own work in the Orkney Islands . i The Ogham character, the fair wr ting of ' Babel - loth ancient Irish literature , is called the , ’ Bethluis Bethlm snion e or , from its initial lett rs, like “ ” Gree co- oe Al hab e t a an d the Ph nician p , the Arabo “ ” Ab ad fl d H ebrew j . It may brie y be describe as f b ormed y straight or curved strokes , of various lengths , disposed either perpendicularly or obliquely to an angle of the substa nce upon which the letters n . were i cised , punched, or rubbed In monuments supposed to be more modern , the letters were traced , b T - N E E - A HE OGHAM RU S AND L M USH JJ A R . n not on the edge , but upon the face of the recipie t f n l o t sur ace ; the latter was origi al y wo d , s aves and tablets ; then stone, rude or worked ; and , lastly, metal , Th .
    [Show full text]
  • Spoken Hebrew of the Late Second Temple Period According to Oral and Written Samaritan Tradition*
    SPOKEN HEBREW OF THE LATE SECOND TEMPLE PERIOD ACCORDING TO ORAL AND WRITTEN SAMARITAN TRADITION* STEFAN SCHORCH Bielefeld Three different varieties of the Hebrew language are in use among present days Samaritans: Modern Israeli Hebrew, Samaritan Neo- Hebrew,1 and Samaritan Hebrew. While Samaritan Neo-Hebrew is the language used mainly for liturgical compositions after the revival of Hebrew in the 12th century CE, Samaritan Hebrew (= SH) is the Hebrew language employed in the reading of the Torah as transmitted in the Samaritan community. The present contribution will focus on the latter only. The linguistic evaluation of SH has undergone dramatic changes over the last 50 years, especially due to the work of Zeev Ben-Hayyim.2 While Rudolf Macuch in his comprehensive “Grammatik des samaritanischen Hebräisch” (1969) tried to explain most of the peculiarities of SH as the result of inuence from the Arabic vernacular adopted by the Samaritans around the 11th century CE,3 Ben-Hayyim successfully demonstrated ———— * Thanks are due to Mr. James Harland (Bethel/Oxford) for his thoughtful comments and for correcting my English. 1 For a detailed account of the latter, see Moshe Florentin, Late Samaritan Hebrew: a linguistic analysis of its different types, Studies in Semitic languages and linguistics 43 (Leiden/Boston, 2005). 2 See especially Zeev Ben-Hayyim, The Literary and Oral Tradition of Hebrew and Aramaic Amongst the Samaritans (5 volumes) (Jerusalem, 1957–1977 [= LOT I-V]). Volume 5 contains a grammar of Samaritan Hebrew which was subsequently translated into English: Zeev Ben-Hayyim, A grammar of Samaritan Hebrew: based on the recitation of the law in comparison with the Tiberian and other Jewish traditions (revised edition in English with assistance from Abraham Tal) (Jerusalem, Winona Lake, 2000).
    [Show full text]
  • How Was the Dageš in Biblical Hebrew Pronounced and Why Is It There? Geoffrey Khan
    1 pronounced and why is it בָּתִּ ים How was the dageš in Biblical Hebrew there? Geoffrey Khan houses’ is generally presented as an enigma in‘ בָּתִּ ים The dageš in the Biblical Hebrew plural form descriptions of the language. A wide variety of opinions about it have been expressed in Biblical Hebrew textbooks, reference grammars and the scholarly literature, but many of these are speculative without any direct or comparative evidence. One of the aims of this article is to examine the evidence for the way the dageš was pronounced in this word in sources that give us direct access to the Tiberian Masoretic reading tradition. A second aim is to propose a reason why the word has a dageš on the basis of comparative evidence within Biblical Hebrew reading traditions and other Semitic languages. בָּתִּיםבָּתִּ ים The Pronunciation of the Dageš in .1.0 The Tiberian vocalization signs and accents were created by the Masoretes of Tiberias in the early Islamic period to record an oral tradition of reading. There is evidence that this reading tradition had its roots in the Second Temple period, although some features of it appear to have developed at later periods. 1 The Tiberian reading was regarded in the Middle Ages as the most prestigious and authoritative tradition. On account of the authoritative status of the reading, great efforts were made by the Tiberian Masoretes to fix the tradition in a standardized form. There remained, nevertheless, some degree of variation in reading and sign notation in the Tiberian Masoretic school. By the end of the Masoretic period in the 10 th century C.E.
    [Show full text]
  • The Anti-Samaritan Attitude As Reflected in Rabbinic Midrashim
    religions Article The Anti‑Samaritan Attitude as Reflected in Rabbinic Midrashim Andreas Lehnardt Faculty of Protestant Theology, Johannes Gutenberg‑University Mainz, 55122 Mainz, Germany; lehnardt@uni‑mainz.de Abstract: Samaritans, as a group within the ranges of ancient ‘Judaisms’, are often mentioned in Talmud and Midrash. As comparable social–religious entities, they are regarded ambivalently by the rabbis. First, they were viewed as Jews, but from the end of the Tannaitic times, and especially after the Bar Kokhba revolt, they were perceived as non‑Jews, not reliable about different fields of Halakhic concern. Rabbinic writings reflect on this change in attitude and describe a long ongoing conflict and a growing anti‑Samaritan attitude. This article analyzes several dialogues betweenrab‑ bis and Samaritans transmitted in the Midrash on the book of Genesis, Bereshit Rabbah. In four larger sections, the famous Rabbi Me’ir is depicted as the counterpart of certain Samaritans. The analyses of these discussions try to show how rabbinic texts avoid any direct exegetical dispute over particular verses of the Torah, but point to other hermeneutical levels of discourse and the rejection of Samari‑ tan claims. These texts thus reflect a remarkable understanding of some Samaritan convictions, and they demonstrate how rabbis denounced Samaritanism and refuted their counterparts. The Rabbi Me’ir dialogues thus are an impressive literary witness to the final stages of the parting of ways of these diverging religious streams. Keywords: Samaritans; ancient Judaism; rabbinic literature; Talmud; Midrash Citation: Lehnardt, Andreas. 2021. The Anti‑Samaritan Attitude as 1 Reflected in Rabbinic Midrashim. The attitudes towards the Samaritans (or Kutim ) documented in rabbinical literature 2 Religions 12: 584.
    [Show full text]
  • The Gentics of Civilization: an Empirical Classification of Civilizations Based on Writing Systems
    Comparative Civilizations Review Volume 49 Number 49 Fall 2003 Article 3 10-1-2003 The Gentics of Civilization: An Empirical Classification of Civilizations Based on Writing Systems Bosworth, Andrew Bosworth Universidad Jose Vasconcelos, Oaxaca, Mexico Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/ccr Recommended Citation Bosworth, Bosworth, Andrew (2003) "The Gentics of Civilization: An Empirical Classification of Civilizations Based on Writing Systems," Comparative Civilizations Review: Vol. 49 : No. 49 , Article 3. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/ccr/vol49/iss49/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Comparative Civilizations Review by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Bosworth: The Gentics of Civilization: An Empirical Classification of Civil 9 THE GENETICS OF CIVILIZATION: AN EMPIRICAL CLASSIFICATION OF CIVILIZATIONS BASED ON WRITING SYSTEMS ANDREW BOSWORTH UNIVERSIDAD JOSE VASCONCELOS OAXACA, MEXICO Part I: Cultural DNA Introduction Writing is the DNA of civilization. Writing permits for the organi- zation of large populations, professional armies, and the passing of complex information across generations. Just as DNA transmits biolog- ical memory, so does writing transmit cultural memory. DNA and writ- ing project information into the future and contain, in their physical structure, imprinted knowledge.
    [Show full text]
  • The Canaanite Languages
    CHAPTER 20 THE CANAANITE LANGUAGES Aren M. Wilson-Wright 1 INTRODUCTION The Canaanite languages include Ammonite, Amarna Canaanite, Edomite, Hebrew, Moabite, Phoenician and the language of the Deir ʕAllā plaster text (from here on, sim- ply Deir ʕAllā) (Pat-El and Wilson-Wright 2015, 2016). Together with Aramaic, they form the Aramaeo-Canaanite subgroup of Northwest Semitic (Pat-El and Wilson-Wright, forthc.). As a family, the Canaanite languages are attested from roughly 1360 BCE to 400 CE with Proto-Canaanite dating no earlier than 1550 BCE (Wilson-Wright, forthc.). The Canaanite languages were originally attested in what is today Israel (Hebrew), Western Jordan (Ammonite, Deir ʕAllā, Edomite and Moabite) and the coast of Lebanon (Phoe- nician). Beginning around 1000 BCE, Phoenician seafarers, traders and colonists spread their language across the Mediterranean basin, to sites in Cyprus, North Africa and Spain. With the exception of Phoenician, speakers of Canaanite languages never wielded much political power, and their languages only ever assumed regional importance. Phoenician, by contrast, was the language of the Carthaginian Empire and continued to serve as a lingua franca in North Africa after the fall of Carthage in 146 BCE. Because Hebrew is treated separately in Chapters 21 and 22, this chapter will focus on the other six Canaanite languages with occasional references to Hebrew when necessary. Texts in the Canaanite languages represent a variety of genres, including monumen- tal, votive and dedicatory inscriptions as well as narratives, epitaphs, financial docu- ments and letters. Edomite is attested in a single late 7th- or early 6th-century BCE letter.
    [Show full text]
  • The Identity of the First Masoretes
    SEFARAD (Sef ) Vol. 67:1, enero-junio 2007 págs. 37-50 ISSN 0037-0894 The Identity of the First Masoretes ∗ Lea HIMMELFARB Bar-Ilan University Only a few studies have been written concerning the evolution of the Masorah. 1 Elijah ha-Levi Ashkenazi (Bahur) (1468-1529) wrote in the third introduction to his book Masoret ha-Masoret: “There were hundreds and thousands of Masoretes, generation after generation, for many years, and we do not know when they began and when they ended.” 2 He surmises that the Masoretes lived after the Talmudic period. According to Israel Yeivin, “The Masorah had its beginnings in the ha-- lakhot of the writing of the Torah scroll… The early ones who engaged in the Masorah were most likely the scribes in the early Second Temple period.” 3 He observes that “the activity of the Masoretes began after the Talmudic period, and continued until the beginning of the time of the grammarians, that is, ca. 550-950 CE.” 4 Both apparently refer to the written work of the Masoretes. Aron Dotan, however, writes: “The activity of the Masoretes begins in an earlier period, and accompanied the process of the transmission of the text, from * [email protected] 1 Determining the identity of the early Masoretes is an extremely suitable topic with which to honor my teacher, Prof. Aron Dotan, the acknowledged authority of the Masorah. This article was written following my lecture “On the Identity of the First Masoretes” delivered at the 16th Congress of the International Organization for Masoretic Studies (Cambridge, July 20, 2003).
    [Show full text]
  • Is There an Authentic Triennial Cycle of Torah Readings? RABBI LIONEL E
    Is there an Authentic Triennial Cycle of Torah Readings? RABBI LIONEL E. MOSES This paper is an appendix to the paper "Annual and Triennial Systems For Reading The Torah" by Rabbi Elliot Dorff, and was approved together with it on April 29, 1987 by a vote of seven in favor, four opposed, and two abstaining. Members voting in favor: Rabbis Isidoro Aizenberg, Ben Zion Bergman, Elliot N. Dorff, Richard L. Eisenberg, Mayer E. Rabinowitz, Seymour Siegel and Gordon Tucker. Members voting in opposition: Rabbis David H. Lincoln, Lionel E. Moses, Joel Roth and Steven Saltzman. Members abstaining: Rabbis David M. Feldman and George Pollak. Abstract In light of questions addressed to the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards from as early as 1961 and the preliminary answers given to these queries by the committee (Section I), this paper endeavors to review the sources (Section II), both talmudic and post-talmudic (Section Ila) and manuscript lists of sedarim (Section lib) to set the triennial cycle in its historical perspective. Section III of the paper establishes a list of seven halakhic parameters, based on Mishnah and Tosefta,for the reading of the Torah. The parameters are limited to these two authentically Palestinian sources because all data for a triennial cycle is Palestinian in origin and predates even the earliest post-Geonic law codices. It would thus be unfair, to say nothing of impossible, to try to fit a Palestinian triennial reading cycle to halakhic parameters which were both later in origin and developed outside its geographical sphere of influence. Finally in Section IV, six questions are asked regarding the institution of a triennial cycle in our day and in a short postscript, several desiderata are listed in order to put such a cycle into practice today.
    [Show full text]
  • A Brief History of Chapter and Verse Divisions
    HISTORY OF CHAPTER AND VERSE DIVISIONS • Pre-Babylonian Captivity (586 BCE): Bible divided into sections, with Pentateuch divided into 154 sections used in a 3-year reading cycle. • Pre-Dead Sea Scrolls (before 300 BCE—100 CE): Bible divided into sections now called parashoth. Larger sections were indicated by beginning a new line in the scroll, smaller sections by a space within the line. This practice is continued in Masoretic texts1 (oldest known Hebrew Bibles, from 7th-10th centuries CE). Samech (Hebrew <s>) between sentences = small paragraph; pe (Hebrew <p>) between sentences indicates a large paragraph. • Mishnaic period (ca. 200 CE): Verse divisions made within the parashoth when Aramaic translations were introduced into the Hebrew text; the amount of Hebrew that preceded the Aramaic translation became the verse division. After about 500 CE these were indicated by the soph pasuq, a cantillation mark resembling a colon used after the last word of every verse and indicated a full stop, or a period. (Mishnah is a kind of commentary in Judaism.) • Pre-Council of Nicea (325 CE): New Testament divided into kephalia (lit. headings, i.e., paragraphs) for reference; this system no longer survives. • Ca. 1205: Stephen Langton, an Englishman teaching at the University of Paris, later Archbishop of Canterbury, divides Vulgate Bible into modern chapters. In 1244-48, Hugh of St. Cher, a professor of theology at the University of Paris, produces the first Biblical concordance because chapter divisions now make it possible to search for passages in the Bible. In the 1205-1500’s, manuscript and printed bibles (after 1455, Gutenberg Bible) often use a system of letters A-G to further divide chapters into sections.
    [Show full text]
  • A STUDY of WRITING Oi.Uchicago.Edu Oi.Uchicago.Edu /MAAM^MA
    oi.uchicago.edu A STUDY OF WRITING oi.uchicago.edu oi.uchicago.edu /MAAM^MA. A STUDY OF "*?• ,fii WRITING REVISED EDITION I. J. GELB Phoenix Books THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS oi.uchicago.edu This book is also available in a clothbound edition from THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS TO THE MOKSTADS THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS, CHICAGO & LONDON The University of Toronto Press, Toronto 5, Canada Copyright 1952 in the International Copyright Union. All rights reserved. Published 1952. Second Edition 1963. First Phoenix Impression 1963. Printed in the United States of America oi.uchicago.edu PREFACE HE book contains twelve chapters, but it can be broken up structurally into five parts. First, the place of writing among the various systems of human inter­ communication is discussed. This is followed by four Tchapters devoted to the descriptive and comparative treatment of the various types of writing in the world. The sixth chapter deals with the evolution of writing from the earliest stages of picture writing to a full alphabet. The next four chapters deal with general problems, such as the future of writing and the relationship of writing to speech, art, and religion. Of the two final chapters, one contains the first attempt to establish a full terminology of writing, the other an extensive bibliography. The aim of this study is to lay a foundation for a new science of writing which might be called grammatology. While the general histories of writing treat individual writings mainly from a descriptive-historical point of view, the new science attempts to establish general principles governing the use and evolution of writing on a comparative-typological basis.
    [Show full text]
  • The Syntactic Basis of Masoretic Hebrew Punctuation Author(S): Mark Aronoff Source: Language, Vol
    Linguistic Society of America Orthography and Linguistic Theory: The Syntactic Basis of Masoretic Hebrew Punctuation Author(s): Mark Aronoff Source: Language, Vol. 61, No. 1 (Mar., 1985), pp. 28-72 Published by: Linguistic Society of America Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/413420 Accessed: 07-02-2019 19:33 UTC JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms Linguistic Society of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Language This content downloaded from 129.49.5.35 on Thu, 07 Feb 2019 19:33:17 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms ORTHOGRAPHY AND LINGUISTIC THEORY: THE SYNTACTIC BASIS OF MASORETIC HEBREW PUNCTUATION MARK ARONOFF SUNY Stony Brook The punctuation (accent) system of the Masoretic Hebrew Bible contains a complete unlabeled binary phrase-structure analysis of every verse, based on a single parsing principle. The systems of punctuation, phrase structure, and parsing are each presented here in detail and contrasted with their counterparts in modern linguistics. The entire system is considered as the product of linguistic analysis, rather than as a linguistic system per se; and implications are drawn for the study of written language and writing systems.* To modern linguistics, discussion of written language has been taboo.
    [Show full text]