Ver. 2.7

25 March 2003

History of the Hebrew Language

By David Steinberg

davidsteinberg@rogers.com

home page http://members.rogers.com/davidsteinberg/

http://members.rogers.com/davidsteinberg/history_of_hebrew.htm

1. Survey of the Semitic languages;
2. History of Hebrew from its pre-history to the present

2.1 Biblical Hebrew

2.2 Mishnaic Hebrew

2.3 Between the Mishnah and the Revival of Hebrew in the Late 19^th Century

2.4 Modern or Israeli Hebrew

2.5 The “Feel” of Hebrews

3. Tables and Excurses

§         Illustration - The Semitic Family of Languages

§         Excursus 1 - Origin of the Tiberian/Israeli Hebrew Stress Pattern

§         Excursus 2 - What is a Phoneme?

§         Table 1  - Proto-Semitic Phonemes (Consonants) Exhibiting Sound Shifts in Biblical Hebrew and Their Equivalents in Aramaic and Classical Arabic

§         Table 2  - Biblical Hebrew Phonemes (Consonants) of Multiple Origin and their Equivalents in Proto-Semitic, Classical Arabic, Aramaic and Ugaritic

§         Excursus 3 - Bi-literal Origin of Many Tri-literal Hebrew Roots

§         Table 3 - שׁכח In Ps. 137:5 Possible Proto-Semitic Origins of the Root

§         Table 4 - Consonantal Phonemes in Biblical and Israeli Hebrew

§         Table 5 - Original Typical Semitic 3 Way Opposition in Biblical Hebrew Reduced to 2 Way in Israeli Hebrew with Loss of Emphatics

§         Table 6 - Some Impacts of Phonemic Change Between Biblical and Israeli Hebrew

§         Table 7 - Verbal Stems (Binyanim) in Biblical (above slash) and Israeli Hebrew Using GDL as example

§         Excursus 4 - Growth in the Number and Range of Israeli Hebrew Verbs

§         Excursus 5 - Changes in the Meanings of Tenses

§         Table 8 - Tenses Used for English Translations of Some Verb Forms in the Psalms

§         Table 9 - Psalms – Perfect and Imperfect Used in the Same Verse

§         Excursus 6 - New Word Formation

§         Excursus 7 - Changes in Syntax

§         Excursus 8 - Is Israeli Hebrew Unique in Being a Western Language (semantics, use of tenses etc.) Under a Semitic Skin (grammar, vocabulary, semantics, syntax)?

4. Select Bibliography

`

1. Survey of the Semitic languages

The Semitic family [1]consists of a group of about 70 distinct language forms closely related to each other and more distantly related to the rest of the AfroAsiatic group which includes Ancient Egyptian, Berber and the Cushitic languages[2].  The Semitic languages, as far back as can be traced (2^nd and in some cases 3rt millennium BCE), have occupied part of present day Iraq and all of present day Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel and the Arabian peninsula. 

 Map of the Near East

http://www-oi.uchicago.edu/OI/INFO/MAP/SITE/ANE_Site_Maps.html

Maps of the Ancient Near East   http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_maps_asia_neareast.htm

A good, simple outline of the relations of the Semitic languages to each other is at http://phoenicia.org/semlang.html

Since the Semitic languages are clearly closely related[3], it is a reasonable and long-held assumption that they are all derived from an original undifferentiated, though rather variable language called Proto-Semitic.  Although no records of Proto-Semitic exist, through the comparative study of the various languages it is possible to deduce, in outline, Proto-Semitic’s phonology, much of its vocabulary and its grammar including some of its probable syntax.  In general, it can be said that each Semitic language preserved some Proto-Semitic features whereas while diverging from Proto-Semitic in other features.  For instance, Akkadian, the language of the ancient Babylonians and Assyrians[4] in present day Iraq, has alone preserved the Proto-Semitic verbal system while its sound system, influenced by the non-Semitic Sumerian language, was greatly simplified.  Classical Arabic[5] has most faithfully preserved the Proto-Semitic system of case endings of nouns and adjectives[6] and mood endings of the verb and the Proto-Semitic sound system[7] though in its syntax and use of tenses it is more removed from Proto-Semitic than is Biblical Hebrew.

It is probable that Proto-Semitic was spoken over most of the territory earlier mentioned until 3500-3000 BCE.  At about that time Akkadian split off.  This language, which was spoken until the first century BCE, has left written records from about 2600 BCE.

The non-Akkadian[8] part of the Semitic family, called West Semitic, divided prior to 2000 BCE into South Semitic, whose major descendants are Arabic and the Semitic languages of Ethiopia[9], and North-West Semitic which includes Aramaic[10] and Canaanite of which Biblical Hebrew was a dialect.   Shortly after this split, the initial w sound in North-West Semitic became y[11].  Thus we have the equivalence such as the root WHB in Arabic corresponds to YHB in Hebrew and Aramaic.  Thus also, the word for child in Arabic is WALD while in Hebrew it is YELED which was earlier pronounced YALD.

Probably even as late as 2000 BCE one can picture a situation where, from the desert fringes of Iraq through south-eastern Anatolia, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan and the Arabian Peninsula a traveler could have passed from tribe to tribe and village to village noticing only very slight and gradual dialectical changes as he progressed.  Although people at the opposite extremes of this language area might have been unable to understand each other, at no point would a language frontier like those, say, between French and German occur.  This situation is quite similar to that pertaining to the various dialects of spoken Arabic over the same area (and beyond in North Africa), today.  It is from this period i.e. the third millennium BCE, that we receive our first records of the Semitic languages.  These records comprehend 3 languages:

·                       Akkadian (East Semitic) – both in Akkadian texts and Akkadian words preserved in Sumerian texts;

·                       Eblaite (intermediate between East Semitic and West-Semitic) – preserved in Early Bronze Age (2500 BCE) tablets amounting to about 3000 tablets in all;

·                       Amorite[12] – this West-Semitic language is preserved mainly in proper names in Sumerian and Akkadian texts.  Fortunately, as Semitic names are frequently short sentences – e.g. Hebrew Eliyah = my God is the LORD – the language can be partly reconstructed even from such meager data.

The situation outlined ended with the rise of political-cultural centers in the North-West Semitic areas.  By about 1000 BCE, the dialect of Damascus had established itself as normative Aramaic and started a spread, helped by its use as a lingua franca, which would enable it, by 100 BCE to completely replace Akkadian in the North-East and, by 200 CE to displace Hebrew in the south.

2. History of Hebrew from its pre-history to the present

Now, having disposed of the North-West Semitic dialects of Syria, we can turn our attention nearer to our subject.  While Damascus Aramaic was becoming a standard language the situation in what is now Lebanon, Jordan and Israel remained one of a series of dialects none of which was able, through conquest or prestige, to become a linguistic standard.

We have only fragments of most of the various Canaanite dialects, of the period 1000-500 BCE such as those of Samaria, Galilee, Coastal Plain, Ammon, Edom or Moab.  However, it would seem that they were mutually intelligible[13] have come down to us.  Two dialects, from opposite ends of the Canaanite spectrum, have left major literary remains.   In the extreme north, on the Lebanese coast, was Phoenician [13a] and its North African Carthaginian offshoot Punic, have left inscriptions dating from 10^th-1^st centuries BCE and 9^th C BCE to 2^nd CE respectively.  This tended to be a rapidly developing language very open to foreign influences as we would expect for a language of a sea-faring people.  In the extreme South we have the literary dialect of Jerusalem i.e. Biblical Hebrew.

Before we leave the other languages, we could point out one of the many benefits to the understanding of Hebrew gained through the comparative study of Semitic languages.  As I said before, the Semitic languages are closely related.  For example “A survey of the first 100 Phoenician words in the dictionary shows that 82 percent have the same meaning in Hebrew.  Between Ugaritic[14] and Hebrew the figure is about 79 percent.”  Thus it not infrequently occurs that a root or word may be common in say Aramaic, while it may occur only once or twice in Hebrew.  A knowledge of Aramaic may then lead to an understanding of the Hebrew word.  Thus the root YHB occurs only in the imperative of the basic stem of the verb (qal or pa’al) sometimes in the same context as NTN to give.  In Aramaic, the root is routinely used meaning to give.

In Table 1 you can see Proto-Semitic consonants which have shifted in one or more of Hebrew, Aramaic or Arabic.

In Table 2 I have given the Proto-Semitic, Aramaic, Arabic and Ugaritic values for the Hebrew consonants having more than one origin.

You may be familiar with Psalm 137:5

אם אשכח ירושלם תשכח ימיני

 The King James Bible translates this as “If I forget thee O Jerusalem let my right hand forget her cunning. The last two words are printed in italics.   In the King James Bible this indicates that the words are not found in the Hebrew.  We can see the problem of the early translators.  What they read was “If I forget thee Jerusalem let my right hand forget”.  Clearly this is ridiculous. Hence they added their guess of what it might forget – i.e. its cunning.  The problem is that the same root שכח is used twice in the same stem in the same verse.  This root, in this stem, is the normal way to say forget in Hebrew.  In Table 3 you will see that there are 6 possible Proto-Semitic origins of the Hebrew root שכח.  Is it possible that of the 5 possibilities for שכח i.e. aside from שכח = forget, one will be preserved in another Semitic language with a meaning which appears both original and to explain the verse?  Fortunately, in the closely related Ugaritic language there is said to be such a root th-k-H = shrivel which fills the bill.  Thus, the New Revised Standard Version translates our verse as –

“If I forget you O Jerusalem, let my right hand wither”

It makes sense!

We can explain the course of event as follows:

1. Around 2000 BCE Proto-Hebrew had two distinct roots th-k-H = shrivel and options 1, 2, 5, or 6 in Table 3 = forget.

2. All instances of TH in Hebrew shifted to š hence the roots became indistinguishable leading to the abandonment of שכח = shrivel except in the conservative poetic dialect in situations where it was not likely to be confused and could be used for a pleasing poetic effect  such as in our verse.

3. In time the meaning of שכח = shrivel was completely lost due to its rare use, destruction of scribal schools etc...

 It should be noted that comparative philology is difficult to use credibly and can easily be abused.  See Barr.

2.1 Biblical Hebrew

As stated earlier, Biblical Hebrew (see Steiner and Encyclopedia Judaica) is the literary form of the very conservative dialect of Jerusalem.  It crystallized in Jerusalem about 900 BCE and showed little change until the Babylonian Exile in the 6^th century BCE. From then on it became more and more an archaic literary vehicle radically different from the spoken Hebrew.  As a literary dialect it was used until the fall of the Second Temple in 70 CE.

Biblical Hebrew can be divided into:

·                       a poetic form, used in e.g. Job, Psalms;

·                       a semi-poetic form of rhythmic speech used in e.g. Isaiah which may be compared to blank verse; and,

·                       a prose form which was probably fairly close to spoken Hebrew of the early First Temple period. 

The poetic form is more archaic, uses a special vocabulary and the poetry written in it is highly stylized (see references in the Selected Bibliography below).  The earliest poems may date from 1100 or 1200 BCE and the latest from about 450 BCE.

The prose form is much more straight-forward.  It is divided into:

·                       a standard form used from about 900-500 BCE e.g. Genesis, Samuel, Kings; and,

·                       a later form influenced by spoken Hebrew and Aramaic

The Wisdom Books, such as Proverbs, are written with a special vocabulary where ordinary words may have special meanings.

2.2 Mishnaic Hebrew

With the destruction of the First Temple (587 BCE) the scribal schools and royal patronage of writers ended, Jerusalem was depopulated, the country was ruined and much of the population was exiled to Babylonia where the common language was Aramaic.  Later, a small number of Babylonian Jews, probably mainly Aramaic speaking, returned to Judah where they provided the leadership, under Persian imperial patronage, for a slow restoration of Jerusalem and a much reduced Judah known as the province of Yahud.

When written sources again give us a look in, the linguistic situation of the country was:

·                       Greek was widely spoken in (see map of Hellenistic and Herodian Cities):

o       Coastal plain;

o       Decapolis (Jordan Valley north of the main Jewish area in Trans-Jordan);

o       Greek cities within Jewish areas in Galilee;

o       Greek cities within Samaritan populated areas of central and northern Samaria;

o       Greek cities within Idumean areas in the northern Negev i.e. what was formerly the southern section of the territory of the tribe of Judah.

·                       Aramaic was the majority language of the country.  Probably it was the only language, other than Greek, spoken throughout the country except for some areas of Judea between Lod and Jericho.  It seems to have been the language of the upper classes in Jerusalem; and,

·                       A proto-Mishnaic form of Hebrew was probably spoken, along with Aramaic in some areas of Judea between Lod and Jericho;, and

·                       Late Biblical Hebrew which was a literary language, along side Greek and Aramaic for the Jewish population.  There were no speakers of this artificial tongue.  This is not dissimilar to the situation of Modern Literary Arabic today or Church Latin in the middle ages.

Spoken Hebrew underwent great changes of three kinds:

·                       Natural developments internal to the language (see Segal, Kutscher, Bendavid);

·                       A mixing of dialects due to the political upheavals, exile etc.; and

·                       The profound influence of Aramaic in vocabulary, semantics and grammar including inflection.

Christian scholars have, at times, claimed that Hebrew was completely replaced by Aramaic during this period.  However, Segal,  Greenfield and Levine have demonstrated that this was not the case.  Modern linguistic study, research on contemporary sources, the Bar Kochba letters in a popular spoken Hebrew all show that Hebrew was a spoken language of southern Palestine until at least 135 CE when, in the wake of the Bar Kochba rebellion,  the Romans evicted or killed the Jewish population in the areas in which Hebrew was still spoken.  At that point, Aramaic and Greek became virtually the only spoken languages of the whole of what is now Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Israel.  An early form of Arabic was already spoken on the desert fringes of this area.

T he Roman suppression of the first Jewish revolt against Rome (67-70 CE), including the destruction of Jerusalem led to a social-cultural-religious collapse.  This included the disappearance of the priestly aristocracy and Jewish groups such as the Sadducees and Essenes.  The earliest Rabbinic literature dates from the period 70-200 CE and it is written in the spoken Hebrew of the time, called, after the most famous literary product of the time, Mishnaic Hebrew.

I will say a few words about Mishnaic Hebrew.

In 1^st century BCE-first century CE Judea many native Hebrew speakers would have been able to speak, or at least understand, Aramaic.  It must be remembered, that Aramaic and Hebrew are about as different as Spanish and Italian.  For example,

·                       I’ll read the first verse of the Bible in Hebrew and Aramaic; and, from the haggadah

·                       Ha laHma in Aramaic and translate it into Hebrew.

As I mentioned, Mishnaic Hebrew is very different from Biblical Hebrew  - certainly more different than present day English is from the language of Shakespeare though less different than that of our language from that of Chaucer. It differed from Biblical Hebrew in the use of tenses, syntax, grammar and vocabulary.  It was not used for poetry, prophecy or high prose.  However, what it lacked in grandeur, grace and dignity it made up in precision.  Mishnaic Hebrew probably preserves many words for work-a-day objects and activities that were never mentioned in the Bible due to the subjects discussed in the Bible or, more accurately, not discussed.  Examples might include keveš  (preserves); gaHar (jetty) and zol (cheapness).

2.3 Between the Mishnah and the Revival of Hebrew in the Late 19^th Century

All forms of Hebrew used in this period consisted, in varying portions, of 4 elements:

·                       Biblical Hebrew

·                       Mishnaic Hebrew

·                       The writers’ native language

·                       Literary models that the writer was imitating consciously or unconsciously

2.4 Modern (Israeli) Hebrew

Modern Israeli Hebrew (see Berman), generally called either Modern Hebrew or Israeli Hebrew, started life, in the late 19^th century, in the same way as all forms of Hebrew since the mid-first century CE i.e. a combination of Biblical Hebrew, Mishnaic Hebrew, the influence of the native languages of the speakers and, for the written form, their literary models. This last element was of the least importance in fashioning the language.  In the case of Israeli Hebrew, “the influence of the native languages of the speakers” translated into a profound impact on Modern Hebrew (see below), of the sentence structure and semantics of Yiddish, Russian and German in that order of importance. 

We can tackle our discussion of Israeli Hebrew under three heads:

§         Grammar;

§         Phonology i.e. sound system

§         Semantics i.e. the range of meanings and associations of words

The relative importance of Biblical Hebrew, Mishnaic Hebrew, the influence of the native languages of the speakers differs in each of these issues.

1. Grammar - Morphology and Syntax

The word grammar comprehends both morphology (i.e. study and description of word formation (as inflection, derivation, and compounding) in language) and syntax i.e. the way in which linguistic elements (as words) are put together to form constituents (as phrases or clauses).

The morphology of Israeli Hebrew has been little influenced by the native languages of its early speakers[15].  One can generalize and say that:

·                       in the morphology i.e. the forms of verbs and nouns Biblical Hebrew predominates (see Tene ) ;

·                       in the radical simplification of grammar and a concomitant movement to becoming a more analytical language Israeli Hebrew follows Mishnaic Hebrew;

·                      In the use of tenses and the development of rigid rules of subordination in sentence structure the influence of Standard Average European[16] (see Rosen) was predominant[17]

2. Phonology

The phonology of Israeli Hebrew has been described as partly desemitized (Tene).

The mass of the early speakers of Israeli Hebrew were from Europe and were unable to pronounce the gutturals (אחע) aside from ה and the emphatics (טצק).  This resulted in a drastic reduction in the phonemes in Israeli Hebrew as compared to Biblical or even Mishnaic Hebrew (see Excursus 2- Tables 4-6). The combination of the loss of gutturals, reduction of 3 way opposition, the reduction of doubled consonants (gemination), commencement of syllables with vowels and the formation of consonantal clusters at the beginning of words will probably have far-ranging effects on the structure.  Except for the loss of the emphatics, all of these phenomena are paralleled by developments in earlier stages of Hebrew or in other Semitic languages.[18]

Some examples of the nature of these changes –

·                       Table 6 shows examples of the impacts of loss of gemination and loss of gutturals

·                       the quiescing of consonantal value of the letter yod before /i/ at the beginning of a word results in syllables beginning with vowels – a rather unsemitic phenomenon e.g. ישמור pronounced as ish-mor (Biblical yish-mor); ישראל pronounced as is-ra-el (Biblical yiŚ-ra-el);

As an aside, I would suggest that care should be taken to read Biblical Hebrew poetry as Biblical Hebrew, not as if it were a Modern Hebrew text.  In particular, care should be taken to actualize gemination so that the Biblical syllabification is maintained.

3. Semantics

It is in semantics that Israeli Hebrew can be said to break radically with the past and semantically and hence culturally become a European language. ( see Rosen, Tene and Izre'el )

The process worked as follows.  When reviving Hebrew, the revivers asked the “fatal question” i.e. “what is the Hebrew word for X” with X being a Yiddish, Russian or German (and more recently English) word.  He would:  

1. select a Hebrew word (verb, adjective, noun etc.) with a historical semantic range that overlapped the particular meaning of the foreign word he was trying to translate.  Then, the Hebrew word would come to mirror the semantic range of word X.  I.e. it would take the range of meanings of X and lose all of its original meanings not included in the semantic range of X. This is a development with huge cultural implications Examples -

• TaHana was originally a fairly rare word, from a root meaning “bending down” used meaning a stop for camping.  It was used for describing the Israelites camping places in the wilderness.  The root being similar in meaning to se stationer in French, taHana was chosen as the Hebrew calque (a compound, derivative, or phrase that is introduced into a language through translation of the constituents of a term in another language (as superman from German Übermensch) of the word “station”.  It is now used to translate any English use of station without any connection, any longer, with the root meaning. In fact, since “station” is not used in European languages to denote a camping place, it can no longer be used in its original meaning!  Arabic used a more “authentic” approach i.e. the Arabic word for bus stop is related to the word “to stop”; for police station Arabic uses a word meaning center of diffusion. What this means is that Hebrew has accepted an idiosyncratic development of this vocabulary item which stems from internal developments in another, historically unrelated, language. 

Similar developments have taken place for Sherut to translate all senses of service and Tenu’a for all senses of movement e.g. scout movement!

2. use one of the other approaches described by Tene.

For Israeli slang  see.

One important impact of the Europeanization of Hebrew semantics was to move Hebrew from an "objective" language emphasizing what is being described in a narrative, and its state of completeness, to a "subjective" language more concerned with the place, and to a certain extent, time of the narrator (see Rosén).

The net result is that while the grammar and vocabulary of Israeli Hebrew are overwhelmingly Hebrew, the range of meanings and associations of the words are overwhelmingly European.  This combined with the differing implications of the tenses in Biblical, Mishnaic and Israeli Hebrew makes Israelis, unless specially trained, poor choices for teaching Biblical Hebrew.

An additional complication for Israelis learning or teaching Biblical or Mishnaic Hebrew is caused by the fact that it is quite frequent for Biblical Hebrew prose to use one noun or verb for an object or action, while Biblical Hebrew may have one or more synonyms for the prose word while Mishnaic Hebrew might use a different word, which might well be one of the thousands borrowed from Greek and Aramaic,  or use the biblical word in a different sense.  Bendavid has published a whole glossary for words in Biblical Hebrew automatically replaced by different words in Mishnaic Hebrew.

2.5 The “Feel” of Hebrews

To conclude this talk I would like to say a few words on the “feel” of the various layers of Hebrew.  As I mentioned or implied earlier, Biblical Hebrew, with its beautiful poetry and complex morphology and subtle syntax is awe inspiring.  It is a language of verbs and nouns that is sparing in the use of adjectives[19] .  Mishnaic Hebrew is morphologically a simpler language with a more complex syntax while Israeli Hebrew is grammatically about as complex as Mishnaic Hebrew but its sentence structure is similar to that of modern European languages. At times, one gets the impression, that Israeli Hebrew is smothered under adjectives, adverbials and compound neologisms such as ramzor or kolnoa’.[20]  Having said this, I would like to quote a fascinating statement made by Haiim B Rosén in Israel Language Policy and Linguistics (Ariel vol. 25 p. 109)

“Although there is no published material on this aspect I wish to impart some results achieved from a contrastive observation of “Early Israeli Hebrew” (the written language of the twenties and thirties) compared to usages of our own generation.  The contrast is striking; quotations taken from the early layer have either to be “translated” or reinterpreted, lest the immediate impression they create be one of ridiculous language.  But a distinct direction can be observed in this development; while early revived Hebrew is full of anachronisms, reminiscences from classical sources, words that have become obsolete by now, it is astonishing how much closer present-day Hebrew is, in morphology and syntactic constructions, to what is apparent to the linguist in the structure of Classical Hebrew.

While it is impossible here to substantiate this statement, I wish to offer an explanation.  When Hebrew became “more living,” it became less foreign.  Becoming less foreign means absorbing more and more of the linguistic items that constitute the formal system of Hebrew, so that a linguistic system can be created that is, in fact, largely a reconstitution of a considerable portion of the classical system …. Features of modern standard language that can be considered the result of re-classicization of Hebrew (e.g. case government, stabilization of syntactical interrelation between verbal stems, fargoing revival of the distinctions between various types of noun linking, restriction of adjectives in favour of noun constructions, semantic shadings, particularly in  the domain of verbs) were hardly ever taught by normative grammar, since these very notions are largely the result of modern synchronic descriptive Hebrew linguistics.”

3. Tables and Excurses

Illustration[21]

The Semitic Family of Languages

Freely adapted from  p1 of תולדות הלשון העברית חוברת א by Sh Sharbit based on the lectures of E. Y. Kutscher, Bar-Orin, 1969 (the Hamito-Semitic languages are now generally called the AfroAsiatic Language group)

Excursus 1

Origin of the Tiberian/Israeli Hebrew Stress Pattern

For fuller information see Select Bibliography Blau 1972 pp 80-84

Tiberian Hebrew, closely followed by Israeli Hebrew, mostly stresses the final syllable but sometimes stresses the second to last syllable.  Unlike English and Arabic, vowel length is not phonemic. How did this pattern develop? 

Literary Arabic preserves the very ancient semitic case endings of the nouns and adjectives and mood endings of the verbs.  Hebrew probably lost these before 1200 BCE i.e. about the time of Moses.

We can see the process as having 3 stages:

1.      ancestral Canaanite probably had a movable stress pattern similar to that of  Literary Arabic (see Stress and vocalic change in Hebrew: a Diachronic Study by J. C. L. Gibson 1965);

2.      Stress then shifted to be uniformly on the second to last syllable

3.      Case and mood endings were dropped leaving us with the Tiberian stress pattern

Some examples of nouns:

Ø      Masculine singular segolate nouns are penultimate stress.  Process – the word for sword (חרב) gone through following stages

a.      1300 BCE in nom. case singular pronounced HARbu (caps = stressed syllable)

b.      1100 BCE with loss of case ending (u) became HA-reb

c.      probably in early centuries of the Common Era period it became HE rev (See sect 29.5 in Semitic Languages. Outline of a comparative grammar by E.Lipinski,  Leuven 1997)

Ø      Feminine singular segolate nouns are ultimate stress. Process – the word for girl (ילדה) gone through following stages

a.      1300 BCE in nom. case singular pronounced yal DA tu

b.      1100 BCE with loss of case ending (u) yal DA

Ø      The word for truth (אמת = ‘emet) would seem to be similar to m Masculine singular segolate nouns so why is it stressed on the last syllable e MET?

a.      1300 BCE in nom. case singular pronounced ‘a MIN tu

b.      1100 BCE with loss of case ending (u) ‘a MINT

c.      standard assimilation of נ when it comes before any consonant capable of doubling gives ‘a MIT which subsequently became e MET

Excursus 2

What is a Phoneme?

A phoneme is -

·                       A contrastive unit in the sound system of a particular language.

·                       A minimal unit that serves to distinguish between meanings of words.

·                       Pronounced in one or more ways, depending on the number of allophones.

·                       Represented between slashes by convention.

Example:

/b/, /j/, /o/

nb. I have not used slashes in the following tables.  For convenience, the transcription is a compromise between phonemic and phonetic

Table 1

Proto-Semitic Phonemes (Consonants) Exhibiting Sound Shifts in Biblical Hebrew and Their Equivalents in Aramaic and Classical Arabic

See העברית ׀הלשונות הקרבות לה מאת מאיר  מדן in מקראה לתורת ההגה ed. Uzi Ornan Hebrew University 1977

See On Polyphony in Biblical Hebrew by Joshua Blau.  Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities Proceedings, vol. VI no. 2 1982.

* for Proto-Semitic phonemes see p 112 ff  of Semitic Languages. Outline of a comparative grammar by E.Lipinski,  Leuven 1997

**  this may be a recreation of an old pronunciation see sect. 14.7 in Semitic Languages. Outline of a comparative grammar by E.Lipinski,  Leuven 1997

*** “Ś being a sound rather close to sh, as may be inferred form their representation by the same letter, perhaps pronounced like Polish ś”. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew by J Blau, Porta Linguarum Orientalium 1976 p. 5 footnote.  See, in more detail, pp 133-139 in Semitic Languages. Outline of a comparative grammar by E.Lipinski,  Leuven 1997

Table 2

Biblical Hebrew Phonemes (Consonants) of Multiple Origin and their Equivalents in Proto-Semitic, Classical Arabic, Aramaic and Ugaritic

Nb.

1.        The unpointed Hebrew of biblical times 3 letters (ח, ע, and ש) each stood for two phonemes (like th in English this and the). This lack of sufficient letters probably reflects the sound system of the dialect of the Phoenician scribes from whom the Judeans borrowed the writing system.  See On Polyphony in Biblical Hebrew by Joshua Blau.  Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities Proceedings, vol. VI no. 2 1982.

2.       final ה (not הּ) in tri-literal roots were originally final י or ו  hence another opportunity for the development of homonyms.

3.       initial י in tri-literal roots were originally either י or ו.

4.       for a complete list of equivalences see A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew by J Blau, Porta Linguarum Orientalium 1976 p. 6

Excursus 3

Bi-literal Origin of Many Tri-literal Hebrew Roots

In looking at Hebrew roots it is a good idea to keep in mind:

1. Semitic roots may have originally been bilateral – hence series of trilateral roots with related meanings (in this case split, separate, divide) e.g. PRD, PRH, PRZ, PRK, PRM, PRS, PR`, PRŞ, PRR, PRQ, PRSH, PRT, PRR, PWR,

2.    The causative prefixes SH and S and nominal prefix T are used to form new roots e.g.

Ø      SRV to refuse from RYV to contend

Ø      SHRR to free from HR

Ø      SQŞ to detest or make detestable from QWŞ to loathe SH`BD to enslave from ‘BD to serve

Ø      THL to begin from HLL with the same meaning

Table 3

שׁכח In Ps. 137:5

Possible Proto-Semitic Origins of the Root

1. sh-k-kh
2. sh-k-H
3. th-k-kh
4. th-k-H
5. causative  sh + k-kh
6. causative  sh + k-H

Because of the polyphony of ח in Biblical Hebrew (seen note to table 2 above) we should recall that kh and H were still distinct phonemes in the biblical period.

Ugaritic has a root th-k-H = shrivel which fills the bill (see Barr p. 336 Select Bibliography below)

Table 4

Consonantal Phonemes in Biblical and Israeli Hebrew

* from Glinert p. 9 (see Select Bibliography below) see also Berman

** for germination see pp. 179-184 and sect. 23.5 in Semitic Languages. Outline of a comparative grammar by E.Lipinski,  Leuven 1997

***  used almost exclusively to transliterate foreign words

**** “Ś being a sound rather close to sh, as may be inferred form their representation by the same letter, perhaps pronounced like Polish ś”. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew by J Blau, Porta Linguarum Orientalium 1976 p. 5 footnote.  It has survived inno language to the present shifting to sh in Samaritan Hebrew, Phoenecian and Arabic and to s in Mishnaic Hebrew and Aramaic.

Ø       For the impact of the merging of phonemes on the vocabulary of Israei Hebrew  see Encyclopedia Judaica vol. 16 para. 1645-1646.

Ø       I am ignoring the double pronunciation of the בגדכפת letters which was non-phonemic in Biblical Hebrew.  As noted by Kutscher p. 21 (see Select Bibliography below) the bouble pronunciation of these letters had come into existence, in Hebrew and Aramaic, by the second half of the first millennium BCE.

Table 5

Original Typical Semitic 3 Way Opposition in Biblical Hebrew Reduced to 2 Way in Israeli Hebrew with Loss of Emphatics*

* See sect 10.9 in Semitic Languages. Outline of a comparative grammar by E.Lipinski,  Leuven 1997 and Tene

Table 6

Some Impacts of Phonemic Change Between Biblical and Israeli Hebrew

 * see Berman for other examples

Table 7

Verbal Stems (=Themes=Binyanim) in Biblical (above slash) and Israeli Hebrew

Using GDL as example

*= not actually found

** see grammars listed in select bibliography below for details

Excursus 4

Growth in the Number and Range of Israeli Hebrew Verbs

Two main methods:

1.     extracting 3 or 4 consonant roots out of Hebrew or foreign nouns and forming verbs in the piel/pual/hitpael forms. E.g. from telephone the verb tilfen and from torpedo tirped

2.     For most roots, only 2 or 3 of the 7 main stems were in use in pre-modern Hebrew.   Israeli Hebrew has been able to massively activate unused forms in order to create variants on the root idea.  E.g. classically זרק was used in the kal stem meaning to cast.  Now it is still used in kal for that idea but is also used , on the analogy of European languages, in hiphil/huphal to mean to give (hiphil ) or receive (huphal) an injection. (See Tene in Select Bibliography below)

Excursus 5

Changes in the Meanings of Tenses

Proto-Semitic Tense System – basically as in Akkadian see Encyclopedia Judaica article Hebrew Language vol. 16 col. 1566-1568

Biblical Poetry – except for late poetry, the two tense forms and active participle (שמר, ישמור, שומר) could be used almost interchangeably. The tense, in a time sense, must be gathered from context.  See Table 9a and 9b for the ambiguities caused by this situation.

Biblical Prose* – the key to understanding Biblical tenses is that the key idea for the verb is whether the act or state is seen as complete or incomplete at the time being described not at the time of the narrator. Therefore, both tense forms can be used in relation to the past, present or future. Complete states or acts use the forms שמר (sha-mar) and ׀ישמור (way-yish-mor); incomplete states or acts use the forms ישמור(yish-mor) and ושמר (we-sha-mar).  The active participle is not really part of the verbal system (see Gordon in Select Bibliography below**).  Most commonly

·                       Actions in the past are expressed using the forms שמר (sha-mar) and ׀ישמור (way-yish-mor) if they are seen as completed.

·                        actions the future are expressed using the forms שמר (sha-mar) and ׀ישמור (way-yish-mor) if they are seen as certain to happen, as good as completed ;

·                        generally actions in the present and future are expressed using the forms ישמור(yish-mor) and ושמר (we- sha-mar) as are acts in the past that were seen as ongoing e.g. Moses was speaking.

·                        States in the present are seen as being complete so the perfect forms are used for the past and present and the imperfect forms for the future.  E.g. ידעתי in the Bible means I know or knew depending on context.  Similarly קטונתי means I am or was small.

* For details see Williams pp 32-38 and Gesineus 99 309-339 and 355-362 (see Select Bibliography below).

The verb in Biblical Hebrew, and the origin of the consecutive tenses, is the subject of much discussion. See The Enigma of the Hebrew Verbal System : Solutions from Ewald to the Present Day by Leslie McFall, Sheffield : Almond Press, 1982 and Williams p 32ff in Select bibliography below.

** from Gordon p. 11

“I move on now to … “What time does the participle refer to?”  … Percentage of time-referenced participles that refer to

Israeli Hebrew – the same verb forms are used but their meaning is past-present-future[21] not, as in Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew whether they are complete or not.

The fundamental concept is whether an act is past present or future at the time being described not at the time of the narrator. For the past the form שמר (sha-mar) is used; for the present and immediate future the active participle (שומר) is used; for the future and modal the form ישמור(yish-mor) is used. Verbs of state have largely been replaced, in Mishnaic and Israeli Hebrew, by adjectives.

This subject is discussed in detail in Glinert (see Select Bibliography below).

Table 8

Tenses Used for English Translations of Some Verb Forms in the Psalms

Table 9

Psalms – Perfect and Imperfect Used in the Same Verse

Excursus 6

New Word Formation

Israeli Hebrew has taken many inherited resources and regularized their uses to enable it to closely parallel modern European languages. A few items of note:

-          wide use of suffixes such as וּת to form abstract nouns and ֽי to freely form adjectives

-         use of what are essentially prefixes to freely form adverbs e.g. באופן

-         the use of inherited particles in ways that closely parallel the usages of European languages e.g.  אֽי, בֽלְתֽי

For details see Glinert (Select Bibliography below)

-                         

Excursus 7

Changes in Syntax

In Mishnaic and Israeli Hebrew Biblical Hebrew’s richly varied uses of the infinitives largely disappears (see Gesenius pp 339-355; Williams, Segal p 54 and Glinert in Select Bibliography below).  The infinitive construct prefixed by ל is now used mainly in ways analogous to the English infinitive.  Also, in Mishnaic and Israeli Hebrew the “consecutive tenses” have disappeared thus changing the look and feel of the language drastically.

Kutscher (see Select Bibliography below) wrote

“H Rosén has noted a … phenomenon which has changed the whole makeup of Israeli Hebrew – its syntax.

“The development of the “period” with its many subordinate clauses has made Israeli Hebrew flexible enough to be employed like any other modern (i.e. European) language. … Biblical Hebrew is to a large extent paratactic, i.e. it prefers to coordinate sentences, (a start in the development of the modern structure was made by) Mishnaic Hebrew (which) is much more syntactic, making use of the subordinating ש (she) in all kinds of subordination.”

For more detailed discussion of some issues see Studies in Modern Hebrew Syntax and Semantics ed., North-Holland Linguistic Series 32 1976 Peter Cole

Excursus 8

Is Israeli Hebrew Unique in Being a Western Language (semantics, use of tenses etc.) Under a Semitic Skin (grammar, vocabulary, semantics, syntax)?

Interestingly, a well respected scholar of both Hebrew and Arabic has shown the Modern Standard Arabic has developed in ways very closely paralleling developments in Israeli Hebrew. See Joshua Blau's book "The Renaissance of Modern Hebrew and Modern Standard Arabic" (Berkeley: UC Press, 1981)

4. Select Bibliography

(see also http://www.hjs.uni-heidelberg.de/studium/heb_lit.html)

I History of Hebrew 

1. "Hebrew Language" Encyclopedia Judaica 16, Jerusalem 1971, 1560-1662 (Ch.Brovender: Pre-Biblical; Y.Blau: Biblical; E.Y.Kutscher: The Dead Sea Scrolls; E.Y.Kutscher: Mishnaic; E.Goldenberg: Medieval; E.Eitan: Modern Period)

2. A History of the Hebrew Language by Eduard Y. Kutscher; edited by Raphael Kutscher Published by The Magnes Press, 1982

3. Histoire de la langue Hébraique. Des origines à l'époque de la Mishna by M.Hadas-Lebel, Leuven 1995

4. A History of the Hebrew Language by A.Sáenz-Badillos, Cambridge 1993

5. Words and their History by E. Y. Kutscher – – Ariel vol. 25 (1969) pp. 64-74

6. for the reconstruction of the inflections, sound system and stress patterns of Pre-Biblical and Biblical Hebrew see Torat Hahege Vehatzurot  by Joshua Blau, Hakibbutz Hameuchad 1972.

7. The Transition Period in Biblical Hebrew: A Study in Post-Exilic Hebrew and Its Implications for the Dating of Psalms (in Hebrew)  by Avi Hurvitz, Bialik Institute 1972

8. Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew (in Hebrew) by Abba Bendavid Dvir 1967 (2 volumes)

9. The Languages of Palestine, 200 B.C.E.-200 C.E. by Jonas C. Greenfield in Al Kanfei Yonah: Collected Studies of Jonas C. Greenfield on Semitic Philology, ed. Shalom M.

10. Languages of Jerusalem in Levine, Lee I. Judaism and Hellenism in antiquity : conflict or confluence?, Hendrickson Publishers, 1998. Paul, Michael E. Stone, and Avital Pinnick. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2001.

11. On the Nature and Development of Modern Hebrew:

                      I.      Israeli Hebrew by David Tene – Ariel vol. 25 pp. 48-63 (particularly pp. 51-63)

 II.      Israel Language Policy and Linguistics by Haiim B Rosén – Ariel vol. 25 pp. 92-110

III.     Contemporary Hebrew by Haiim B. Rosén, Mouton, 1977.

IV. The Emergence of Spoken Israeli Hebrew by Shlomo Izre'el

V. The World Dictionary of Hebrew Slang by Dahn Ben-Amotz and Netiva Ben-Yehuda, Lewin-Epstein 1972

VI. Hebrew Slang and Foreign Loan Words by Raphael Sappan – – Ariel vol. 25 (1969) pp. 75-80

II More Specialized 

1. An Introduction to Comparative Grammar of Semitic Languages Phonology and Morphology Porta Linguarum Orientalium - PLO 6 by Sabatino Moscati

2. The Semitic Languages ed. R. Hetzron, Routledge, London 1997 chapters Ancient Hebrew by R. C. Steiner and Modern Hebrew by R A Berman

3. Semitic Languages. Outline of a comparative grammar by E.Lipinski,  Leuven 1997

4. Semitic Languages. An Introduction by Chaim Rabin, Jerusalem 1991 [Hebrew]

5. Dictionnaire des racines sémitiques by D.Cohen,  Fasc. 1 Paris 1970; Fasc. 2 Paris 1976. Fasc 3-8ff, Leuven 1993ff

6. Dialect geography of Syria-Palestine, 1000-586 B.C.E. by W.R.Garr, Philadelphia 1985

7. Dictionary of the North-West Semitic inscriptions, 1.2., ed *J.Hoftijzer-K.Jongeling,  Leiden 1995

8. A Grammar of Epigraphic Hebrew by S.L.Gogel, Atlanta/Georgia 1999

9. Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament by James Barr, Oxford 1968

10. The Art of Biblical Poetry by Robert Alter

11. Biblical Poetry in Encyclopedia Judaica vol. 13 col. 671-681

12. Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry by Frank Moore cross Jr. and David Noel Freedman. SBL Dissertation Series 21 1975 originally a 1950 dissertation.

13. Studies in Early Hebrew Meter by D. K. Stuart Scholar’s Press 1976.

14. Late Biblical Hebrew: Toward an Historical Typology of Biblical Hebrew Prose by Robert Polzin.  Scholars Press 1976 Harrassowitz Verlag, 1980

15. The Transition Period in Biblical Hebrew [Hebrew] by Avi Hurvitz, (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1972), pp. 67-176; see also idem., "Linguistic Criteria for Dating Problematic Biblical Texts," Hebrew Abstracts 14 (1973), 74-79

16. The Development of the Participle in Biblical, Mishnaic, and Modern Hebrew by A. Gordon, Afroasiatic Linguistics, Undena Publications 1982

II Biblical Hebrew

1. Grammar

Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar by William Gesenius, Emil Kautzsch (Editor) – thorough reference grammar.  Not a text book

Ancient Hebrew by R. C. Steiner in The Semitic Languages ed. R. Hetzron, Routledge, London 1997

An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax by B.K.Waltke and M. O’Connor, Eisenbrauns 1990

Hebrew Syntax An Outline by R. J. Williams, University of Toronto Press 1967;

2. Dictionaries (Do NOT use a Modern Hebrew/Israeli Hebrew dictionary for Biblical Hebrew)

·                       Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (universally called “BDB”) by William Gesenius, Edward Robinson (Translator), Francis Brown (Editor), S. R. Driver (Editor), Charles A. Briggs (Editor) – very good, not user friendly, represents the state of Hebrew lexicography at the end of the 19^th century and affordable; 

·                       The Hebrew and Aramaic lexicon of the Old Testament / by Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner ; subsequently revised by Walter Baumgartner and Johann Jakob Stamm ; with assistance from Benedikt Hartmann ... [et al.]. Leiden ; New York : E.J. Brill, 1994 -This is in the tradition of BDB but brings it up to date integrating twentieth century research in Mishnaic Hebrew, Aramaic, Ugaritic and even Eblaite etc.  I find it more user-friendly.  It will certainly succeed BDB, together with the following dictionary, among scholars who can afford them.  It is available in electronic form eg http://www.gramcord.org/mac/kb.htm  http://www.logos.com/products/product.asp?item=1676 and http://www.bibleworks.com/.

·                       The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew / David J.A. Clines, editor, Sheffield Academic Press, 1993 – four volumes so far going up to letter Lamed – claims to be the first Biblical Hebrew based on linguistic theory not on philology (it omits information on other Semitic languages).  It includes all known Hebrew up to 200 CE i.e. the Bible, Ben Sira, non-Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls and inscriptions.  The non-Biblical material is equivalent to 15 percent of the Biblical.  It treats all of this linguistic cor nchronically i.e. a corpus coverint c. 1200 years as if it were uniform linguistically!  It is user-friendly, impressive and expensive.

http://www.shef.ac.uk/uni/academic/A-C/biblst/DJACcurrres/Postmodern2/Dictionary.html

·                       Theological dictionary of the Old Testament / ed. by G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren ; translator, John T. Willis, Publisher W.B. Eerdmans, 1974 – this 12 volume+ series is an in-depth resource of the large selection of words covered ) – highly recommended

3. Text Books – there are many with varying approaches.  The student should look for one that deals seriously with syntax.  One that I could recommend is

Introduction to Biblical Hebrew by Thomas Oden Lambdin

III Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls

Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls by E Qimron, Harvard Semitic Studies 29, Scholars Press 1986.

IV Mishnaic Hebrew

1.                  Reference Grammar - Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew by M. H. Segal, Oxford 1958, Paperback 1980

2.                  Dictionary - Dictionary of the Targumim, Talmud Babli, Yerushalmi, and Midrashic Literature by Marcus Jastrow.  Once again, do NOT use a Modern Hebrew/Israeli Hebrew dictionary for Biblical Hebrew.

3.                  Text Books – Very few.  The only one I know of is An Introductory Grammar of Rabbinic Hebrew by M.Pérez Fernández, (translated by J.Elwolde), Leiden 1997. Paperback 1999.  It is pretty thorough and well organized and has a major bibliography.

A good approach to learning Mishnaic Hebrew would be to sequentially:

a.      Go through Segal (above); and then with Segal and Jastrow as constant companions to -

b.      Read Pirke Avot which is found in prayer books and in many independent translations.

c.      get a Hebrew copy, and English translation, of Sefer Ha-Aggadah (see below)  and to use the English translation as a study aid.   The Book of Legends Sefer Ha-Aggadah: Legends from the Talmud and Midrash by Hayyim Nahman Bialik (Editor), et al

d.      study selected Mishnah texts in a bilingual edition such as Mishnayoth Translated and annotated by Rabbi Philip Blackman http://www.judaicapress.com/blackman_mishnayoth.asp

V Israeli Hebrew see also A Basic Bibliography for the Study of Modern Hebrew

1.      Grammar

The Grammar of Modern Hebrew by Lewis Glinert – Cambridge University Press (n.b. the bibliography) 1989 – this is only serious Israeli Hebrew reference grammar in either English or Hebrew that I have seen.  It is good but very expensive.  It is in university libraries and can be borrowed through inter-library loans.

The same author’s Modern Hebrew: An Essential Grammar is a small reference work for reference by students in the first 2-3 years of serious study of Israeli Hebrew.

Modern Hebrew Structure by Ruth A. Berman, Tel Aviv Universities Publishing 1978

Modern Hebrew by Ruth A. Berman in The Semitic Languages ed. R. Hetzron, Routledge, London 1997

2.      Textbooks – There are many bad textbooks.  One pretty good one is Textbook of Israeli Hebrew by Haiim B. Rosén University of Chicago Press 1962

http://members.rogers.com/davidsteinberg/history_of_hebrew.htm

E-MAIL

davidsteinberg@rogers.com

   People have visited this page since March 1, 2003