Kimmo: On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 10:03 AM, Kimmo Huovila <[email protected]>wrote:
> Karl, > > If I remember correctly, you argue on the basis of internal evidence that > 2nd > temple period Hebrew texts in the Tanakh were not written by native > speakers. > Here you claim that we don't have enough data to say what is a mistake > (instead of a native form) in Aramaic. Have I got this right so far? > We have at least seven books of the Tanakh, one of which was so long as normally to be split into two, compared to a one line, a short one at that, graffito of unknown provinance from a period when people often wrote phonetically according to their local speech and from which period most documents have been destroyed. From the former, there is enough data to point to a difference in literary style compared to an earlier time, and the latter not enough data to say anything definite. > > Would you like to elaborate on the methodological questions here. Somehow I > miss how you can make the claim about Aramaic and maintain the claim about > Hebrew with a consistent methodology. > Data, how much is there? > > What is it that I miss? > > Kimmo Huovila > Karl W. Randolph. _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
