This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Biblical Hebrew article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
Biblical Hebrew has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
I'm currently learning Hebrew, and found the tenses and aspects section to be really unhelpful. Having a few simple examples for each would be really nice. a lot of the pages linguistic explanations go right over my head, having only a modest intellect, and not being a student of linguistics. In particular, examples of the letters appearing in root words, infixes, for tensing, would be most helpful. I have checked other parts of Wikipedia, but some of those also seem written in a way as to be intentionally hard to understand, or to need more cultural, religious, or collegiate submersion to understand.
in other words, please simplify necessary parts, and add clear examples. Wikipedia is the textbook of all knowledge in the world. make it easier for us dumber humans to understand. Gnarlytreeman ( talk) 16:31, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Sure. Ancient dead languages were once taught to children, and still currently are in orthodox schools, the language simply isnt dead.
And what im asking for is the exact opposite of complex analysis.
We need simple examples. Surely that isn't too hard. Right now there is a huge list of tenses and aspects, but no language example. A massive discourse is unnecessary.
The knowledge is simply missing, making the page basically useless, at least for folk not entrenched in linguistics.
and most folk like myself who use wikipedia, are of modest intelligence and need simple examples.
Just make a different article if you think something needs a controversy or more lengthy explaination added.
Besides, wikipedia, is necessary on this subject because it is one of the few sites that has the possibility of scrubbing religious or political bias from presentation. Gnarlytreeman ( talk) 07:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Quoted from the previously referenced wikipedia article, subsection textbooks
"However, examples intended to inform rather than to instruct, may be appropriate for inclusion in a Wikipedia article"
I asked for nothing more than informative examples.
Why are you being so persistently anti-knowledge? It seems like your almost trying to restrict basic free language information dispersal. Why? Gnarlytreeman ( talk) 18:50, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Exactly what it says in the title. I'm not a normal wikipedia editor, just a conlanger using Biblical Hebrew as an inspiration, and I found this mistake. Hope someone fixes it! 74.51.145.127 ( talk) 05:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
There really ought to be a note about how many words Biblical Hebrew had, which IIRC is on the order of 2,000 roots forming some 8,000 words. I'm not sure where in the article that should go, nor do I have a source at the moment; I would appreciate it if someone better at this could make the addition. Dismalscholar ( talk) 20:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, everyone!
I am unsure if I am showing proper etiquette as of now as this is the first time I've ever written one of these, but does anyone know as to any possible research in regards to the phoneme ʋ possibly being a phoneme in Biblical Hebrew? A friend of I have not encountered upon any research in regards to this specific matter, but I'm unsure if I should edit it out or of I should fist sort eveything here before to see if there is anything. I decided to be safe and bring it up here for the time being.
If anyone can inform me on this matter, I would be most glad :). Best regards and thanks in advance Yippur ( talk) 10:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
As you can see
here and
here, these sounds existed in proto-semitic times and it's very possible they were still around in biblical times.
Also proposing to add [d͡z] for ז
Emdosis (
talk)
11:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
All of the sounds mentioned exist in Arabic today as well.
Emdosis (
talk)
11:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Also worth mentioning that ⟨d̪⟩ exists in modern day Sepharadi Hebrew. Emdosis ( talk) 14:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
For a discussion by a very reputable scholar, see "On Polyphony in Biblical Hebrew" by Joshua Blau ( PDF here). He agrees with the standard polyphony of ש (of course), and argues in great detail for the polyphony of ח and ע (each representing both a pharyngeal consonant and a velar fricative) in "literary" or formal Biblical recitation Hebrew down to the late centuries B.C. However, he does not support other polyphony. AnonMoos ( talk) 03:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Biblical Hebrew article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
Biblical Hebrew has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
I'm currently learning Hebrew, and found the tenses and aspects section to be really unhelpful. Having a few simple examples for each would be really nice. a lot of the pages linguistic explanations go right over my head, having only a modest intellect, and not being a student of linguistics. In particular, examples of the letters appearing in root words, infixes, for tensing, would be most helpful. I have checked other parts of Wikipedia, but some of those also seem written in a way as to be intentionally hard to understand, or to need more cultural, religious, or collegiate submersion to understand.
in other words, please simplify necessary parts, and add clear examples. Wikipedia is the textbook of all knowledge in the world. make it easier for us dumber humans to understand. Gnarlytreeman ( talk) 16:31, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Sure. Ancient dead languages were once taught to children, and still currently are in orthodox schools, the language simply isnt dead.
And what im asking for is the exact opposite of complex analysis.
We need simple examples. Surely that isn't too hard. Right now there is a huge list of tenses and aspects, but no language example. A massive discourse is unnecessary.
The knowledge is simply missing, making the page basically useless, at least for folk not entrenched in linguistics.
and most folk like myself who use wikipedia, are of modest intelligence and need simple examples.
Just make a different article if you think something needs a controversy or more lengthy explaination added.
Besides, wikipedia, is necessary on this subject because it is one of the few sites that has the possibility of scrubbing religious or political bias from presentation. Gnarlytreeman ( talk) 07:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Quoted from the previously referenced wikipedia article, subsection textbooks
"However, examples intended to inform rather than to instruct, may be appropriate for inclusion in a Wikipedia article"
I asked for nothing more than informative examples.
Why are you being so persistently anti-knowledge? It seems like your almost trying to restrict basic free language information dispersal. Why? Gnarlytreeman ( talk) 18:50, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Exactly what it says in the title. I'm not a normal wikipedia editor, just a conlanger using Biblical Hebrew as an inspiration, and I found this mistake. Hope someone fixes it! 74.51.145.127 ( talk) 05:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
There really ought to be a note about how many words Biblical Hebrew had, which IIRC is on the order of 2,000 roots forming some 8,000 words. I'm not sure where in the article that should go, nor do I have a source at the moment; I would appreciate it if someone better at this could make the addition. Dismalscholar ( talk) 20:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, everyone!
I am unsure if I am showing proper etiquette as of now as this is the first time I've ever written one of these, but does anyone know as to any possible research in regards to the phoneme ʋ possibly being a phoneme in Biblical Hebrew? A friend of I have not encountered upon any research in regards to this specific matter, but I'm unsure if I should edit it out or of I should fist sort eveything here before to see if there is anything. I decided to be safe and bring it up here for the time being.
If anyone can inform me on this matter, I would be most glad :). Best regards and thanks in advance Yippur ( talk) 10:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
As you can see
here and
here, these sounds existed in proto-semitic times and it's very possible they were still around in biblical times.
Also proposing to add [d͡z] for ז
Emdosis (
talk)
11:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
All of the sounds mentioned exist in Arabic today as well.
Emdosis (
talk)
11:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Also worth mentioning that ⟨d̪⟩ exists in modern day Sepharadi Hebrew. Emdosis ( talk) 14:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
For a discussion by a very reputable scholar, see "On Polyphony in Biblical Hebrew" by Joshua Blau ( PDF here). He agrees with the standard polyphony of ש (of course), and argues in great detail for the polyphony of ח and ע (each representing both a pharyngeal consonant and a velar fricative) in "literary" or formal Biblical recitation Hebrew down to the late centuries B.C. However, he does not support other polyphony. AnonMoos ( talk) 03:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)