DOCSLIB.ORG

Hebrew Bible and Semitic Comparative Lexicography

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Hebrew Bible and Semitic Comparative Lexicography HEBREW BIBLE AND SEMITIC COMPARATIVE LEXICOGRAPHY BY Stanislav SEGERT Praha The present paper draws attention to some aspects of the study of the lexical material in the Hebrew Bible from the comparative view-point, in its past and at present. Brief information will be given on arecent undertaking in Semitic Comparative lexicography which can be utilized in dealing with the lexical problems of Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic. Prom the very beginning Semitic comparative lexicography has been conceived and developed as a discipline serving the inter­ pretation of the Bible; on the other hand, the lexical material from the Old Testament, in original Hebrew and in the ancient Semitic versions, Targum, Syriac and Arabic, formed the bulk of the material on which the extant comparative dictionaries of the Semitic languages were based. Leaving aside the perhaps unconscious interpretation of archaie Hebrew words with help of the contemporary Aramaic among the Qumran Essenes 1), we can see the first application of a comparative method for the interpretation of the Bible in the traditions about the maid of Rabbi Jehuda who was able to explain some difficult words in the psalms, with help-in at least one case, certainly-of Aramaic 2); the knowledge of an Aramaic-or Arabic-speaking traveller was also used for the same purpose 3). The mediaeval Jewish scholars, beginning with Sa Cadya 4), made more and more use of Aramaie and Arabic comparative material. The first great systematic undertaking in the field of Semitic comparative lexicography, the Lexicon Pentaglotton by Valentin 1) Cf. E. Y. KUTSCHER, Hlfwn whrqc hlfwny JI mgylt Yf'yhw hJlmh mmgylwt Ym hmlb. (The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll) Jeru­ salem 1959, p. 241, sub 34. 2) b. Ros ha-sana 26b. 3) Ibidem, toy"häk.; Ps. Iv 23; cf. ArOr 25,1957, pp. 25-26. 4) 892-942. COMPARATIVE LEXICOGRAPHY 205 SCHINDLER 1), published in 1612, was based mostly on the Bible: besides its Hebrew original, the Aramaic, Syriac and Arabic versions were taken into account, but the meanings of the Semitic words were stated with the help of Greek and Latin translations of the Bible. The stress on Hebrew, especially Biblical Hebrew, is to be seen at first sight in the arrangement of the second work of this kind, compiled by Johann Heinrich HOTTINGER 2), Erymologicum orientale sive Lexicon harmonicum heptaglotton, of 1661. The most complete and reliable Comparative Dictionary of the Semitic languages was and still remains the Lexicon heptaglotton by Edmond CASTELL 3), published in 1669; its connection with the study of the Bible is clear from the fact that it appeared as an appendix to W ALTON'S London Polyglot Bible. For three centuries no Comparative Dictionary of Semitic languages has been published in which the progress in this field has been systematicaIly coIlected. The results of monographical lexical studies dealing with individual words or word groups as weIl as the rich comparative material contained in some commentaries and exegetical studies are of course summarized in the introductory paragraphs dealing with roots and words in the big lexica to the Old Testament. In the last years a great deal of work has been devoted to the study of individual words, roots and etymologicaIly or semantically connect­ ed groups of words, both from the standpoint of Hebrew or Semitic studies alone, and as the prerequisites for a deeper understanding of the relevant New Testament terms 4). Etymological research, often using newly discovered Semitic texts from Antiquity and connected with the comparativist approach, served as a basis for historical interpretation and religious evaluation of the Hebrew words and word groups. In concentrated search on inherent meaning the function of words in their context was frequently disregarded. James BARR'S criticism attempted to stress the function of words in the context, introducing some useful concepts and methods of modern linguist­ ics 5). The classical philologists know weIl the maxim "Verba valent usu". The modern theory of generallinguistics speaks about the determina- 1) Cf. ArOr 28, 1960, p. 470-471. 2) Ibidem, p. 471. 3) Ibidem, p. 471-472. 4) Especially in the Theologisches Wiirterbuch zum Neuen Testament. 5) J. BARR, The Semantics 01 Biblical Language, Oxford 1961, pp. 108-109. .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Language of the Old Testament: Biblical Hebrew “The Holy Tongue”
    E-ISSN 2281-4612 Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies Vol 4 No 1 ISSN 2281-3993 MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy March 2015 Language of the Old Testament: Biblical Hebrew “The Holy Tongue” Associate Professor Luke Emeka Ugwueye Department of Religion & Human Relations, Faculty of Arts, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, PMB 5025, Awka- Anambra State, Nigeria Email: [email protected] phone - 08067674763 Doi:10.5901/ajis.2015.v4n1p129 Abstract Some kind of familiarity with the structure and thought pattern of biblical Hebrew language enhances translation and improved ways of working with the language needed by students of Old Testament. That what the authors of the Scripture say also has meaning for us today is not in doubt but they did not express themselves primarily for us or in our language, and so it requires training on our part to understand them in their own language. The features of biblical Hebrew as combined in the language’s use of imagery and picturesque description of things are of huge assistance in this training exercise for a better operational knowledge of the language and meaning of Hebrew Scripture. Keywords: Language, Old Testament, Biblical Hebrew, Holy Tongue 1. Introduction Hebrew language is the language of the culture, religion and civilization of the Jewish people since ancient times. It belongs to the northwest ancient Semitic family of languages. The word Semitic, according to Kitchen (1992) is formed from the name Shem, Noah’s eldest son (Genesis 5:32). It is an adjective derived from ‘Shem’ meaning a member of any of the group of people speaking Akkadian, Phoenician, Punic, Aramaic, and especially Hebrew, Modern Hebrew and Arabic language.
    [Show full text]
  • Saudi Dialects: Are They Endangered?
    Academic Research Publishing Group English Literature and Language Review ISSN(e): 2412-1703, ISSN(p): 2413-8827 Vol. 2, No. 12, pp: 131-141, 2016 URL: http://arpgweb.com/?ic=journal&journal=9&info=aims Saudi Dialects: Are They Endangered? Salih Alzahrani Taif University, Saudi Arabia Abstract: Krauss, among others, claims that languages will face death in the coming centuries (Krauss, 1992). Austin (2010a) lists 7,000 languages as existing and spoken in the world today. Krauss estimates that this figure could come down to 600. That is, most the world's languages are endangered. Therefore, an endangered language is a language that loses her speakers within a few generations. According to Dorian (1981), there is what is called ―tip‖ in language endangerment. He argues that a language's decline can start slowly but suddenly goes through a rapid decline towards the extinction. Thus, languages must be protected at much earlier stage. Arabic dialects such as Zahrani Spoken Arabic (ZSA), and Faifi Spoken Arabic (henceforth, FSA), which are spoken in the southern region of Saudi Arabia, have not been studied, yet. Few people speak these dialects, among many other dialects in the same region. However, the problem is that most these dialects' native speakers are moving to other regions in Saudi Arabia where they use other different dialects. Therefore, are these dialects endangered? What other factors may cause its endangerment? Have they been documented before? What shall we do? This paper discusses three main different points regarding this issue: language and endangerment, languages documentation and description and Arabic language and its family, giving a brief history of Saudi dialects comparing their situation with the whole existing dialects.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comprehensive NLP System for Modern Standard Arabic and Modern Hebrew
    A Comprehensive NLP System for Modern Standard Arabic and Modern Hebrew Morphological analysis, lemmatization, vocalization, disambiguation and text-to-speech Dror Kamir Naama Soreq Yoni Neeman Melingo Ltd. Melingo Ltd. Melingo Ltd. 16 Totseret Haaretz st. 16 Totseret Haaretz st. 16 Totseret Haaretz st. Tel-Aviv, Israel Tel-Aviv, Israel Tel-Aviv, Israel [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Abstract 1 Introduction This paper presents a comprehensive NLP sys- 1.1 The common Semitic basis from an NLP tem by Melingo that has been recently developed standpoint for Arabic, based on MorfixTM – an operational formerly developed highly successful comprehen- Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) and Modern Hebrew (MH) share the basic Semitic traits: rich sive Hebrew NLP system. morphology, based on consonantal roots (Jiðr / The system discussed includes modules for Šoreš)1, which depends on vowel changes and in morphological analysis, context sensitive lemmati- some cases consonantal insertions and deletions to zation, vocalization, text-to-phoneme conversion, create inflections and derivations.2 and syntactic-analysis-based prosody (intonation) For example, in MSA: the consonantal root model. It is employed in applications such as full /ktb/ combined with the vocalic pattern CaCaCa text search, information retrieval, text categoriza- derives the verb kataba ‘to write’. This derivation tion, textual data mining, online contextual dic- is further inflected into forms that indicate seman- tionaries, filtering, and text-to-speech applications tic features, such as number, gender, tense etc.: katab-tu ‘I wrote’, katab-ta ‘you (sing. masc.) in the fields of telephony and accessibility and wrote’, katab-ti ‘you (sing. fem.) wrote, ?a-ktubu could serve as a handy accessory for non-fluent ‘I write/will write’, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to the Relevance of and a Methodology for a Study of the Proper Names of the Book of Mormon
    An Introduction to the Relevance of and a Methodology for a Study of the Proper Names of the Book of Mormon Paul Y. Hoskisson Since the appearance of the Book of Mormon in 1830, its proper names have been discussed in diverse articles and books.1 Most of the statements proffer etymologies, while a few suggest the signicance of various names. Because of the uneven quality of these statements this paper proposes an apposite methodology. First, though, a few words need to be said about the relevance of name studies to our understanding of the Book of Mormon. Relevance With the exception of a few modern proper names coined for their composite sounds,2 all names have meanings in their language of origin. People are often not aware of these meanings because the name has a private interpretation, or the name has been borrowed into a language in which the original meaning is no longer evident, or the name is very old and the meaning has not been transmitted. For example, the English personal name Wayne is an old form of the more modern English word wain, meaning a “wagon” or “cart,” hence the surname Wainwright, “builder/repairer of “3 However, to our contemporary ears Wayne no longer has a meaning; it is simply a personal name. With training and experience, it is often possible to dene the language of origin, the meaning, and, when applicable, the grammatical form of a name. Names like Karen, Tony, and Sasha (also written Sacha from the French spelling) have been borrowed into English from Danish,4 Italian,5 and Russian6 respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Classical and Modern Standard Arabic Marijn Van Putten University of Leiden
    Chapter 3 Classical and Modern Standard Arabic Marijn van Putten University of Leiden The highly archaic Classical Arabic language and its modern iteration Modern Standard Arabic must to a large extent be seen as highly artificial archaizing reg- isters that are the High variety of a diglossic situation. The contact phenomena found in Classical Arabic and Modern Standard Arabic are therefore often the re- sult of imposition. Cases of borrowing are significantly rarer, and mainly found in the lexical sphere of the language. 1 Current state and historical development Classical Arabic (CA) is the highly archaic variety of Arabic that, after its cod- ification by the Arab Grammarians around the beginning of the ninth century, becomes the most dominant written register of Arabic. While forms of Middle Arabic, a style somewhat intermediate between CA and spoken dialects, gain some traction in the Middle Ages, CA remains the most important written regis- ter for official, religious and scientific purposes. From the moment of CA’s rise to dominance as a written language, the whole of the Arabic-speaking world can be thought of as having transitioned into a state of diglossia (Ferguson 1959; 1996), where CA takes up the High register and the spoken dialects the Low register.1 Representation in writing of these spoken dia- lects is (almost) completely absent in the written record for much of the Middle Ages. Eventually, CA came to be largely replaced for administrative purposes by Ottoman Turkish, and at the beginning of the nineteenth century, it was function- ally limited to religious domains (Glaß 2011: 836).
    [Show full text]
  • The Modern South Arabian Languages
    HETZRON, R. (ed.). 1997. The Semitic Languages. London : Routledge, p. 378-423. The Modern South Arabian Languages Marie-Claude SIMEONE-SENELLE CNRS - LLACAN. Meudon. France 0. INTRODUCTION 0.1. In the South of the Arabian Peninsula, in the Republic of the Yemen and in the Sultanate of Oman, live some 200,000 Arabs whose maternal language is not Arabic but one of the so- called Modern South Arabian Languagues (MSAL). This designation is very inconvenient because of the consequent ambiguity, but a more appropriate solution has not been found so far. Although there exists a very close relationship with other languages of the same Western South Semitic group, the MSAL are different enough from Arabic to make intercomprehension impossible between speakers of any of the MSAL and Arabic speakers. The MSAL exhibit many common features also with the Semitic languages of Ethiopia; their relationships with Epigraphic South Arabian (SahaydicLanguages, according to Beeston) remain a point of discussion. There are six MSAL: Mehri (=M), HarsVsi (=H), BaT©ari (=B), HobyOt (=Hb), Jibbßli (=J), SoqoTri (=S. As regards the number of speakers and the geographical extension, Mehri is the main language. It is spoken by the Mahra tribes (about 100,000 speakers) and some Beyt Kathir, in the mountains of Dhofar in Oman, and in the Yemen, in the far eastern Governorate, on the coast, between the border of Oman and the eastern bank of Wadi Masilah, and not in the Mukalla area, contrary to Johnstone's statement (1975:2); in the North-West of the Yemen, Mehri is spoken as far as Thamud, on the border of the Rubº al-Khali.
    [Show full text]
  • Notes on Biblical Hebrew
    NOTES ON BIBLICAL HEBREW JACK FELMAN HEBREW AS A SEMITIC LANGUAGE Biblical Hebrew is a member of the Semitic family of some seventy lan- guages/dialects spoken in antiquity in Southwest Asia from the Sinai Desert and Arabian Desert in the south, to the Taurus Mountains of Lebanon in the north, the Zagros Mountains of Iran in the east, and the Mediterranean Sea in the west. Hemmed in by these natural barriers they remained a single collec- tive. Later they expanded a bit into North Africa and into the East African Horn. The Semitic languages were all dialects of one large dialect continuum. Over time however, important centers, usually capital cities, became foci of dialect concentrations and thus ultimately languages developed. These are the five great literary languages: Biblical Hebrew of Jerusalem, Aramaic of Da- mascus, Akkadian of Babylon and Nineveh, Classical Arabic of Mecca and Classical Ethiopic (Ge'ez) of Axum. Akkadian is often termed East Semitic, Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic Northwest Semitic, and Arabic and Ge'ez Southwest Semitic. Semitic itself is one branch of a much larger superfamily (phylum) of Ham- ito-Semitic (also known as Afro-Asiatic) of some 150 languages stretching in a band from Egypt through North Africa to Morocco, south to the East Afri- can Horn, and southwest in a large area around Lake Chad. Four major branches of languages are noted: Ancient Egyptian including Coptic, Berber, Cushitic, and Chadic. These are all considered sister families of languages related to Semitic. Biblical Hebrew as noted is considered a Northwest Semitic language part of the Canaanite group including Phoenician and Punic, Moabite, Edomite, Ammonite, Amorite and most importantly Ugaritic with shares not only a common linguistic connection but also a common literary culture.
    [Show full text]
  • The Arabic Language: a Latin of Modernity? Tomasz Kamusella University of St Andrews
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by St Andrews Research Repository Journal of Nationalism, Memory & Language Politics Volume 11 Issue 2 DOI 10.1515/jnmlp-2017-0006 The Arabic Language: A Latin of Modernity? Tomasz Kamusella University of St Andrews Abstract Standard Arabic is directly derived from the language of the Quran. The Ara- bic language of the holy book of Islam is seen as the prescriptive benchmark of correctness for the use and standardization of Arabic. As such, this standard language is removed from the vernaculars over a millennium years, which Arabic-speakers employ nowadays in everyday life. Furthermore, standard Arabic is used for written purposes but very rarely spoken, which implies that there are no native speakers of this language. As a result, no speech com- munity of standard Arabic exists. Depending on the region or state, Arabs (understood here as Arabic speakers) belong to over 20 different vernacular speech communities centered around Arabic dialects. This feature is unique among the so-called “large languages” of the modern world. However, from a historical perspective, it can be likened to the functioning of Latin as the sole (written) language in Western Europe until the Reformation and in Central Europe until the mid-19th century. After the seventh to ninth century, there was no Latin-speaking community, while in day-to-day life, people who em- ployed Latin for written use spoke vernaculars. Afterward these vernaculars replaced Latin in written use also, so that now each recognized European lan- guage corresponds to a speech community.
    [Show full text]
  • Was There Hebrew Language in Ancient America? an Interview with Brian Stubbs
    Journal of Book of Mormon Studies Volume 9 Number 2 Article 9 7-31-2000 Was There Hebrew Language in Ancient America? An Interview with Brian Stubbs Brian Stubbs Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms BYU ScholarsArchive Citation Stubbs, Brian (2000) "Was There Hebrew Language in Ancient America? An Interview with Brian Stubbs," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies: Vol. 9 : No. 2 , Article 9. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms/vol9/iss2/9 This Feature Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Book of Mormon Studies by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Title Was There Hebrew Language in Ancient America? An Interview with Brian Stubbs Author(s) Brian Stubbs and John L. Sorenson Reference Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 9/2 (2000): 54–63, 83. ISSN 1065-9366 (print), 2168-3158 (online) Abstract In an interview with John L. Sorenson, linguist Brian Stubbs discusses the evidence he has used to establish that at least one language family in Mesoamerica is related to Semitic languages. Stubbs explains how his studies of Near Eastern languages, coupled with his studies of Uto-Aztecan, helped him find related word pairs in the two language families. The evidence for a link between Uto-Aztecan and Semitic languages, or even Egyptian or Arabic, is still tentative, although the evidence includes all the standard requirements of comparative or historical linguistic research: sound correspondences or con- sistent sound shifts, morphological correspondences, and a substantial lexicon consisting of as many as 1,000 words that exemplify those correspondences.
    [Show full text]
  • Interpreting Semitic Protolanguage As a Conlag Or Constructed Language I
    US-China Foreign Language, ISSN 1539-8080 March 2014, Vol. 12, No. 3, 183-192 D DAVID PUBLISHING Interpreting Semitic Protolanguage as a Conlag or Constructed Language I Edouard G. Belaga Université de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France One of the most natural approaches to the problem of origins of natural languages is the study of hidden intelligent “communications” emanating from their historical forms. Semitic languages history is especially meaningful in this sense. One discovers, in particular, that BH (Biblical Hebrew), the best preserved fossil of the Semitic protolanguage, is primarily a verbal language, with an average verse of the Hebrew Bible containing no less than three verbs and with the biggest part of its vocabulary representing morphological derivations from verbal roots, almost entirely triliteral—the feature BH shares with all Semitic and a few other Afro-Asiatic languages. For classical linguists, more than hundred years ago, it was surprising to discover that verbal system of BH is, as we say today, optimal from the Information Theory’s point of view and that its formal topological morphology is semantically meaningful. These and other basic features of BH reflect, in our opinion, the original design of the Semitic protolanguage and suggest the indispensability of IIH—Inspirational Intelligence Hypothesis, our main topic—for the understanding of origins of natural languages. Our project is of vertical nature with respect to the time, in difference with the vastly dominating today horizontal linguistic approaches. Keywords: Semitic languages, protolanguage, verbal system, origins of natural languages, artificial intelligence, conlagor constructed language, VBBH (Verbal Body of Biblical Hebrew), IIH (Inspirational Intelligence Hypothesis) Language is one of the hallmarks of the human species—an important part of what makes us human.
    [Show full text]
  • ROTWELSCH, Hebrew Loanwords in 431 ——
    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
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Arabic Language
    ARABIC LANGUAGE FOR HYDROGRAPHIC DICTIONARY (HD) PRESENTED BY: CAPTAIN/ JUMA AL BUSAIDI H E A D O F OMAN NATIONAL HYDROGRAPHIC OFFICE M O N A C O 27 N O V E M B E R 2018 السﻻم عليكم Al Salam Alaykum Pease be upon You WHO IS AN ARAB? Not = Middle Eastern What are the differences between these two maps? Which is the Middle East, and which is the “Arab World”? There are 260 million Arabs in the Middle East, not all of whom are Muslim. WHAT IS ARABIC? • A Semitic language • Can you name two other Semitic languages? Hebrew Aramaic The most common greeting in all three languages is “Peace upon you.” In Arabic, one says salaam alaykum, in Hebrew shalom aleichem, in Aramaic, shlaam aalookh. Below, the word peace in the three Semitic languages. WHO USES ARABIC? Native Arabic speakers, of course--but the spoken and written languages are very different, and the spoken language varies from country to country. Muslims use Arabic for prayer and recitation of the Quran, even though only 15-20% of Muslims speak Arabic as their native tongue. The Arabic script is used for many languages besides Arabic, just as “Latin” script is used for many languages. MAP OF THE “MUSLIM WORLD” THE QUR’AN AND ARABIC •Muslims see the Qur’an as a “direct quote” from God. •The Qur’an is in exquisitely beautiful Arabic--rhymed prose. •Muslims experience the Qur’an as sound as well as text. SPECIFICATIONS OF ARABIC Generalities – Arabic is a Semitic language. – Written Arabic has 28 letters plus “hamza” which has different forms.
    [Show full text]