Talk:Mishnaic Hebrew

message: "Rabbinic Hebrew language is arguably the ancient descendant of Biblical Hebrew"
Just out of curiosity, why *arguably*? -- posted by [User:24.74.102.32] ([Special:Contributions/24.74.102.32|contribs])
:The point is that scholarship doesn't see the languages' relationship as so simple. As such, this article needs a lot of work. Their relationship is questioned in order to justify many linguistic differences. Some theories as to the nature of their relationship include:
:* Biblical Hebrew naturally developed into Rabbinic Hebrew as the spoken language of Judea
:* Biblical Hebrew was a literary language, while Rabbinic Hebrew was a non-literary version (known as diglossia, such as in Arabic)
:* Biblical Hebrew and Rabbinic Hebrew descend from different dialectal traditions, which varied based on region
:* Hebrew was not usually spoken in Judea from the return from the Babylonian Exile till the destruction of the Second Temple (primarily Aramaic and maybe Greek); maybe it was revived for nationalistic reasons during the Bar Kokhba revolt, just as Modern Hebrew was 1850 years later.
:Arguments for these hypotheses include reference to influencing languages, Dead Sea Scrolls, Cairo Geniza, "Late Biblical Hebrew", etc. But again, this is a current argument in circles of academia, and often has some ideological baggage attached. --jnothman talk 04:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguable descendant? 

message: Urgent: see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew) to add your opinions about this important matter. Thank you. IZAK 18:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hebrew naming conventions 

message: Quote: Continuous past is expressed using <to be> + <present form>, unlike Biblical and Modern Hebrew. For example (Pirkei Avoth 1:2): "הוא היה אומר" ("He often said".)
It is true that Biblical Hebrew do not know this construction. But Modern Hebrew does. So I changed the sentence to "unlike Biblical but like Modern Hebrew"
Source:
Modern Hebrew: An Essential Grammar (Lewis Glinert) §82a:
Past habitual tense: "I used to..."
One way of expressing "used to" (i.e. "to have been in the habit of doing something") is to add the past tense of היה "be" to the present tense of the verb in question. This is the compound tense:
בּשׁבּת הייתי קם בּשׁמונה (On Shabbat I was in the habit of getting up at eight.)
Ingeborg, 15.01.09.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.59.81.24 (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Past habitual tense 

message: The imperfect (prefixed) form, which is used for the future in modern Hebrew, expresses an imperative (order), volition or similar meanings in Mishnaic Hebrew. For example, (Pirke Avoth 1:3): "הוא היה אומר, אל תהיו כעבדים המשמשין את הרב" ("He would say, don't be like slaves serving the master...", lit. "...you will not be...")</Blockquote>
This example is problematic, standard modern Hebrew uses a unique imperative form in a "positive" imperative sentence and the prefixed (future) form in negative imperative sentence, since this sentence is negative it's actually not clear (to me as well) what happens in a positive imperative sentence in Mishnaic Hebrew. --Nngnna (talk) 09:08, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The imperative 

message: @GordonGlottal "Reverted good faith edits by Ogress (talk): Important to distinguish between the phonology used in the Mishnaic period for Biblical Hebrew and that used for their own dialect."
We don't have any evidence that a distinction was made when Hebrew was still spoken between "vernacular" and "biblical" pronunciations. In addition, these sources are Bible translations; Jews did the Hexapla's transliteration in Tiberias, and Origen merely added it to his translation. Finally, the Tiberian Hexapla text appears to match the Tiberian pronunciation recorded by the Masoretes, who were also in Tiberias! Ogress 13:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mishnaic phonology