No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Traces of Linguistic Development in Biblical Hebrew
Abstract
This article discusses some constructions that are characteristic of the late biblical prose literature and focuses on the more or less unconscious use of verbal syntax. The linguistic competence of the post-exilic authors was not enough to guide them to handle the complicated system of tense, aspect, and modality in the old way, because their current vernacular had developed new strategies to express these categories. Also, the linguistic expression of "point of view," seems to be linked to the development of the narrative as genre. It is, thus, argued that the indisputably late authors produced a Hebrew that displays traces of linguistic development in comparison to the language found in other parts of the Biblical Hebrew narrative prose.
Ancient Hebrew is the best‐known early North‐West Semitic language due to its long and close relationship with Western scholarship. This chapter discusses the Ancient Hebrew language with a focus on time of attestation, language affiliation, writing system, textual evidence, language contacts, and grammar. “Ancient Hebrew” consists of a set of dialects first clearly documented in the southern Levant in the late ninth century BCE. The language's best‐documented ancient relatives are Phoenician, Aramaic, and Ugaritic, documented in alphabetic scripts. From the Iron Age through the Babylonian period Hebrew was written in a local script emerging in the tenth century BCE, developed from the second millennium West Semitic linear alphabet. The range of scribal professional and technical terms shared between Egyptian and West Semitic, suggest a long cultural relationship. In its range of sounds, ancient Hebrew retained a relatively larger portion of the original West Semitic inventory – more than its coastal sibling Phoenician.
This study analyses the complex behavioral profile of Biblical Hebrew constructions that are formally characterized by the schematic sequence: wayhî + temporal expression (T) + a wayyiqtol or qatal clause within the corpus of Genesis-2 Chronicles. More specifically, this schema entails the following construction types: 1) wayhî + T + wayyiqtol, 2) wayhî + T + (ו +) X + qatal, and 3) wayhî + T + qatal. In analyzing these constructions, this study utilizes a framework known as Construction Grammar, in addition to other complementary frameworks that fall under the more general rubric of Cognitive Linguistics. The constructions are analyzed according to the following parameters: the formal and semantic profile of the temporal adjunct employed; the discourse pragmatic function and distribution in discourse; and the TAM semantics of the wayyiqtol and qatal verb forms. This empirical analysis reveals that, while sharing a prototypical discourse function, these constructions differ with respect to their distribution in discourse. Moreover, this study shows that the choice to use one construction over another is motivated by the simultaneous interplay of several factors, among which the most relevant are: the morpho-syntactic and semantic properties of the temporal adjuncts; the discourse pragmatic profile of each construction type; the TAM properties of the verb; and the syntactic profile of the wayyiqtol and qatal clauses. Overall, the behavior of the wayhî + T constructions epitomizes the complexity of Biblical Hebrew, in particularly, the fuzziness of grammatical categories, their multilevel interconnectivity, and dynamics.
The article is a diachronic study of the Biblical Hebrew imperfect and active participle in predicate position in Archaic (ABH) and Standard Biblical Hebrew (SBH). On the premise that the two forms developed along a progressive-imperfective diachronic path, the article looks for evidence of semantic change occurring between ABH and SBH. It is claimed that there is no evidence that the imperfect is the normal form for progressive meaning in ABH. Further, it is found that established models of diachronic pathways cannot explain all the uses of the participle, and that participial predicates probably stem from different source constructions. Whereas the progressive use has developed from attributive participles, some hymnic and proverbial uses may be based on substantivised forms. The substantivised constructions do not belong to the progressive-imperfective path, and can be old. The hymnic participial predicates in the Song of Hannah belong to this group.
For approximately two centuries scholars have sought to identify “Aramaisms” in Biblical Hebrew texts and utilise their presence as evidence for a post-exilic date of composition. In this article it is demonstrated that many features which have historically been identified as Aramaisms were not stable during the transmission of the Bible, as the presence or absence of Aramaic elements varies between the Masoretic Text and the biblical Dead Sea Scrolls. It is thus argued that the presence of Aramaisms is not a reliable criterion for linguistic dating as Aramaisms could often reflect Aramaic influence during a stage of the text’s transmission, rather than the time of its composition.
This article investigates the semantics of the Biblical Hebrew imperfect and participial predicate in Standard (SBH), and Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH) from the perspective of diachronie typology. It focuses on what is called the progressive-imperfective path, a diachronie pathway characterised by a number of interrelated developments, which expand the semantic range of the form while preserving the default aspectual meaning of the prototypical progressive. A detailed description of the pathway, with implications for the diachronie as well as the synchronic analysis of Biblical Hebrew, is presented. It is shown that LBH represents a later stage of the progressive-imperfective path than SBH, primarily due to an increased use of participles with general meanings. The use of the participle with stative lexemes, however, is not diagnostic of linguistic change in Biblical Hebrew. This illustrates the fact that the established typological models have limitations when it comes to explaining certain features of the Biblical Hebrew development.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.