Dear Isaac, I have been a teacher of Akkadian and Ugaritic and have a good command of both languages. There can be no doubt that there is a relationship between these two languages and Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic. But we do not know which is the oldest of the languages. A common characteristic between the Semitic languages from the second and first millennium BCE is that their verbs express aspects rather than tenses—all their finite forms can be used with past, present, and future reference. An interesting characteristic of Ugaritic is the following: There are accounts that tell in detail what will happen in the future, and then the same accounts are given with past reference. What is really interesting is that the SAME verb forms and the same lexemes, for the most part prefix forms, first are used with future reference and then they are used with past reference. This is an excellent example of a language without tenses. The vocabulary of Ugaritic is very close to the Hebrew vocabulary whereas the Akkadian vocabulary is not that close. We could also add Phoenician, which is rather close to Hebrew. An interesting difference is that Phoenician often use the infinitive absolute as its narrative verb, whereas Hebrew often uses a prefix form with a prefixed WAW. The use of the infinitive absolute in Phoenician indicates that a narrative verb (with past reference) needs not have an intrinsic past tense (grammaticalized past)—no one would argue that the infinitive absolute is a grammaticalized past tense.
Best regards, Rolf Furuli Stavern Norway Fredag 10. Mai 2013 06:46 CEST skrev Isaac Fried <[email protected]>: > 1. Every allegation is "made up". > > 2. Do you know the genetic relationship between Hebrew and Arabic? If > not, then it is a mystery. I will give you an example. We find in the > Hebrew bible the curious name GOZAL (Deut. 32:11), 'nestling, young > bird'. It is curious since the act GAZAL (as in Ezekiel 18:18) is > 'rob'. The (otherwise excellent) standard Hebrew dictionary of Eben > Shoshan brings to this word the "etymology" of Arab JOWZAL. To this, > I say: so what. > > 3. Can you "read" the so called "Akkadian"? If not, then leave it > out. Have you actually read any "Ugaritic text"? if not, then leave > it out. > > Isaac Fried, Boston University > > On May 9, 2013, at 10:59 PM, Ishinan wrote: > > > Isaac Fried wrote: Aramaic appears to me to be but bastard Hebrew, > > and the genetic relationship between Hebrew and Arabic is a > > mystery, and so any search for a common ancestral language is, in > > my opinion, futile. I dismiss "Akkadian" and "Ugaritic" as they are > > but tentative languages, and of which I know nothing (and I don't > > think they are worth the effort to "study".) > > > > Ishinan: When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of > > proof on the person asserting a claim. If I am not mistaken you've > > made four heavyweight allegations. > > > > 1- Claimed that Aramaic (a lingua franca of empires) is a "bastard > > language". > > 2- Declared that the genetic relationship between Hebrew and Arabic > > is a mystery. > > 3- Flatly rebuked the search for a common ancestral language which > > you consider as "futile". > > 4- Dismissed Akkadian and Ugaritic as merely "tentative languages". > > > > > > I have to admit I have never witnessed so many made up allegations, > > all casually divulged in such a short paragraph. > > > > While you are at it, what are exactly your definitions for a > > "bastard language" and "tentative languages" ? Please elaborate. > > > > > > > > Ishinan Ishibashi > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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
