A development in verbal morphology common to multiple forms of ancient Hebrew involves the shift ... more A development in verbal morphology common to multiple forms of ancient Hebrew involves the shift of stative, intransitive, and weakly transitive verbs from G-stem (qal) to N-stem (niphal). Like other Hebrew traditions that crystallised in the Second Temple period, the reading tradition of the Samaritan Pentateuch (consisting of the oral realisation of the constituent consonantal, vocalic, and prosodic components) presents a relatively advanced stage of the shift. Against this tendency, however, Samaritan Hebrew also at times appears to preserve archaic qal morphology. This study surveys salient manifestations of “niphalisation” in Samaritan Hebrew, contrasting them with parallel features in Tiberian Hebrew and other forms of ancient Hebrew and Aramaic, especially Second Temple varieties, and seeks to reveal salient commonalities. While highlighting pertinent secondary features common to Second Temple period sources, the paper also emphasises the historical depth of the shift from qal to niphal.
A development in verbal morphology common to multiple forms of ancient Hebrew involves the shift ... more A development in verbal morphology common to multiple forms of ancient Hebrew involves the shift of stative, intransitive, and weakly transitive verbs from G-stem (qal) to N-stem (niphal). Like other Hebrew traditions that crystallised in the Second Temple period, the reading tradition of the Samaritan Pentateuch (consisting of the oral realisation of the constituent consonantal, vocalic, and prosodic components) presents a relatively advanced stage of the shift. Against this tendency, however, Samaritan Hebrew also at times appears to preserve archaic qal morphology. This study surveys salient manifestations of “niphalisation” in Samaritan Hebrew, contrasting them with parallel features in Tiberian Hebrew and other forms of ancient Hebrew and Aramaic, especially Second Temple varieties, and seeks to reveal salient commonalities. While highlighting pertinent secondary features common to Second Temple period sources, the paper also emphasises the historical depth of the shift from qal to niphal.
Cambridge Semitic Languages and Cultures 17 , 2023
This volume explores an underappreciated feature of the standard Tiberian Masoretic tradition of ... more This volume explores an underappreciated feature of the standard Tiberian Masoretic tradition of Biblical Hebrew, namely its composite nature. Focusing on cases of dissonance between the tradition’s written (consonantal) and reading (vocalic) components, the study shows that the Tiberian spelling and pronunciation traditions, though related, interdependent, and largely in harmony, at numerous points reflect distinct oral realisations of the biblical text. Where the extant vocalisation differs from the apparently pre-exilic pronunciation presupposed by the written tradition, the former often exhibits conspicuous affinity with post-exilic linguistic conventions as seen in representative Second Temple material, such as the core Late Biblical Hebrew books, the Dead Sea Scrolls, Ben Sira, rabbinic literature, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and contemporary Aramaic and Syriac material. On the one hand, such instances of written-reading disharmony clearly entail a degree of anachronism in the vocalisation of Classical Biblical Hebrew compositions. On the other, since many of the innovative and secondary features in the Tiberian vocalisation tradition are typical of sources from the Second Temple Period and, in some cases, are documented as minority alternatives in even earlier material, the Masoretic reading tradition is justifiably characterised as a linguistic artefact of profound historical depth.
This volume brings together papers relating to the pronunciation of Semitic languages and the representation of their pronunciation in written form. The papers focus on sources representative of a period that stretches from late antiquity until the Middle Ages. A large proportion of them concern reading traditions of Biblical Hebrew, especially the vocalisation notation systems used to represent them. Also discussed are orthography and the written representation of prosody.
Beyond Biblical Hebrew, there are studies concerning Punic, Biblical Aramaic, Syriac, and Arabic, as well as post-biblical traditions of Hebrew such as piyyuṭ and medieval Hebrew poetry. There were many parallels and interactions between these various language traditions and the volume demonstrates that important insights can be gained from such a wide range of perspectives across different historical periods.
The question of whether and to what degree individual languages dictate, influence, or reflect th... more The question of whether and to what degree individual languages dictate, influence, or reflect the specific perception and thought categories of their respective users has long intrigued readers of the Hebrew Bible. The issue has relevance for, inter alia, the intersection between reality and perception ostensibly revealed via the ancient Hebrew verbal system. Are the relative dearth and ambiguity of explicit tense-aspect-mood (TAM) morphological marking indicative of a characteristically Hebrew conception of reality, one with relatively few and vague TAM distinctions? Despite notable advances, modern scholarship cannot seem entirely to shake the effects of certain long-held, but problematic, assumptions. By way of example, doubts concerning the ancient Israelite notion of time still often seem to animate discussions of the Hebrew verbal system. Methodologically, treatments of the Biblical Hebrew verbal system have regularly been characterized by a reductionist tendency that seeks to derive all meaning from a single basic TAM category. However, the apparent fusing of TAM values in Biblical Hebrew verbal forms is a phenomenon known from many languages. If so, the traditional quest for a single overarching semantic verbal value may be misguided, likely to obscure rather than clarify matters. Both diachronically and synchronically, the Biblical Hebrew verbal forms are fruitfully conceived of as polyvalent markers comprising a combined TAM system, in which, to be sure, certain categories are conveyed more prominently than others. Another problem has been a narrow morphological focus. Since in Biblical Hebrew TAM signaling extends beyond verbal morphology, accounts of TAM expression must not be unduly influenced by the relative paucity and semantic ambiguity of the language’s verbal forms. On the nature of the correlation between language and perception, there is unquestionably much to be gained from investigations into ancient Hebrew TAM marking. Ironically, however, absent a radical reappraisal of the ways past methodological biases continue to inform—and even dictate—current conceptual frameworks and terminology, there is the danger of persisting with predetermined perceptions according to outdated assumptions and limiting innovation to variations on past approaches that have never been more than partially adequate.
Uploads
Papers by Aaron D . Hornkohl
This volume brings together papers relating to the pronunciation of Semitic languages and the representation of their pronunciation in written form. The papers focus on sources representative of a period that stretches from late antiquity until the Middle Ages. A large proportion of them concern reading traditions of Biblical Hebrew, especially the vocalisation notation systems used to represent them. Also discussed are orthography and the written representation of prosody.
Beyond Biblical Hebrew, there are studies concerning Punic, Biblical Aramaic, Syriac, and Arabic, as well as post-biblical traditions of Hebrew such as piyyuṭ and medieval Hebrew poetry. There were many parallels and interactions between these various language traditions and the volume demonstrates that important insights can be gained from such a wide range of perspectives across different historical periods.