Karl: Moabite, Ammonite, Phoenician, perhaps Geshurite? All pretty much Canaanite family tongues.
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 1:34 PM, K Randolph <[email protected]> wrote: > George: > > > On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 11:46 PM, George Athas > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Karl, >> >> You made a claim on another thread that Biblical Hebrew was >> linguistically isolated. Could you explain what you mean by this? >> > > In societies, particularly peasant ones, where the people seldom traveled > more than about 10 miles from their homes, and all their neighbors spoke > the same language as those people, so they never even hear of languages > other than their own: there’s no reason to learn other languages, nor even > other dialects of their own language. Such people are linguistically > isolated. > > In reading Tanakh, such was the case for the vast majority of Israelite > society from shortly after the time of the patriarchs until the Babylonian > Exile. > > >> What are we to do with Hebrew's close cognates? >> >> How close of cognates are you talking about? Even Aramaic was far enough > different that it was not mutually understandable with Hebrew, can that be > called “close”? > >> >> *GEORGE ATHAS* >> *Dean of Research,* >> *Moore Theological College *(moore.edu.au) >> *Sydney, Australia* >> >> Karl W. Randolph. > > _______________________________________________ > b-hebrew mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew > >
_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
