The Syntax of Complex Adding Numerals and Hebrew Diachrony

Screnock, John

doi:10.1353/jbl.2018.0043

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Biblical Hebrew defines our subject narrowly to biblical literature. I prefer using a term like Classical Hebrew , others prefer Ancient Hebrew , but both of these alternatives serve to broaden the scope of inquiry beyond the borders of the Bible and thereby further contextualize the object of study (see Screnock, ). These alternative terms are not limited historically to the “biblical” period—that is, roughly from about 1400–200 BCE—or the biblical corpus.…”

Section: Methodological Debate and Reflectionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Labov discusses five stages of linguistic changes: incipient, vigorous, mid‐range, nearing completion, and completion. Other scholars point to an “S‐curve” of language diffusion (Cook, ; Holmstedt, ; Naudé, ; Screnock, ). By analogy, it is still possible to use “thee” and “thou” in modern English even though they are diachronically archaic.…”

Section: Methodological Debate and Reflectionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The history of Classical Hebrew: From the invention of the alphabet to the Mishnah

Schniedewind

2019

Religion Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A lively debate has engulfed the study of the early history of the Hebrew language in the past two decades. Traditionally, scholars classified the language of the Hebrew Bible into three categories: Archaic, Standard, and Late Biblical Hebrew. But recent trends in biblical criticism have tended to date biblical literature much later, and some scholars date almost all of biblical literature to the Persian and Hellenistic periods. This trend undoes traditional linguistic categories for biblical Hebrew and questions the validity of the linguistic dating of biblical literature. In spite of the challenges, a modified and more complex model for the history of Classical Hebrew remains the working consensus model. A lively debate has engulfed the study of the early history of the Hebrew language in the past two decades, especially advanced by the work of Ian Young and Robert Rezetko (e.g., Young & Rezetko, ). Conferences have been organized to address this issue (e.g., Miller‐Naudé & Zevit, ). Young and Rezetko have continued to advocate for their approach in spite of critical reviews (e.g., Joosten, ). Traditionally, scholars have classified the language of the Hebrew Bible into three categories: Archaic Biblical Hebrew (that is, early biblical poems), Standard Biblical Hebrew (the major part of biblical literature), and Late Biblical Hebrew (comprising compositions from the Persian and Hellenistic periods). But trends in biblical criticism over the past several decades have tended to date biblical literature later and later. Now, one can find some prominent scholars who date almost all of biblical literature—and particularly Pentateuchal literature (Sommer, )—to the Persian and Hellenistic periods. This trend raises serious questions about the validity of the traditional linguistic dating of biblical literature. Although some have ignored this linguistic problem, others have offered a variety of rationales justifying the dismissal of linguistic dating. These divergent trends have resulted in continuing debate regarding the historical linguistics of Biblical Hebrew that is addressed in Ronald Hendel and Jan Joosten's recent book, How Old is the Hebrew Bible? (2018).

show abstract

Section: Methodological Debate and Reflectionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodological Debate and Reflectionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The history of Classical Hebrew: From the invention of the alphabet to the Mishnah

Schniedewind

2019

Religion Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Verbal Argument Structure in the War Scroll

Screnock

2020

Dead Sea Discov.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This essay presents the results of an extended study of verbal argument structure in the War Scroll (1QM). I first establish a method based in generative linguistic theory. I then illustrate this method with a discussion of the argument structure of Qal ‮יצא‬‎ in 1QM and other Dead Sea Scrolls. Following this case study, I present the data from 1QM on verb argument structure—specifically, instances where 1QM adds evidence that is not covered in previous studies of the Dead Sea Scrolls. 1QM presents few developments from earlier Hebrew; I argue that such continuity is significant. I conclude with reflections on the implications of argument structure in 1QM for the study of ancient Hebrew.

show abstract

Expressing the Day of the Month in Biblical Hebrew: A Diachronic Perspective

Moshavi

2022

JSEM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biblical Hebrew (henceforth BH), like most languages, possesses two different kinds of numerals, cardinals, e.g., sheloshah (three) and ordinals, e.g., shelishi (third). While BH can generate a cardinal of any size, the ordinal paradigm in BH only goes up to ten, and there is no morphological or syntactic mechanism for combining ordinals to express higher numbers. BH compensates for its lack of higher ordinals by employing ordinal numerals in dedicated syntactic constructions. The present study is a diachronic corpus-based analysis of the syntax of one kind of cardinal phrase with ordinal meaning, the day-of-the-month expression. This study takes the syntactic and semantic accounts in Rothstein and Moshavi (2021) as its points of departure, and includes a construction not discussed in that publication. The study examines the synchronic and diachronic distributions of four constructions that account for nearly all occurrences of cardinal constructions with ordinal meaning: the appositional phrase (AP), the reduplicative construct phrase (RCP), the construct phrase (CP), and the bare numeral phrase (BN). The data presented reveals noteworthy developments in day-of-the-month expressions in Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH) that are also reflected in the extra-biblical Hebrew corpora of the Second Temple period. These results establish the syntactic expression of ordinality as a topic of significance for the broader endeavour of characterising the linguistic features of exilic and Second Temple Hebrew.

show abstract

The Syntax of Complex Adding Numerals and Hebrew Diachrony

Cited by 3 publications

References 27 publications

The history of Classical Hebrew: From the invention of the alphabet to the Mishnah

The history of Classical Hebrew: From the invention of the alphabet to the Mishnah

Verbal Argument Structure in the War Scroll

Expressing the Day of the Month in Biblical Hebrew: A Diachronic Perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About