V'dibarta Bam - 2020-06-23

« first day (3331 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (1413 days later) »

4:02 AM

2

Q: Story of surgery in the Gemara

I remember hearing about a story in the Gemara where a "surgery" was done on someone who was very overweight, and they ended up removing an amount of fat that doctors nowadays cant do. Does anyone know where in the gemara this is found?

talmud-gemara story-identification

8 hours later…

11:33 AM

1

Q: Why do we sometimes repeat shmoneh esrei when we forget yaaleh v'yavo and sometimes not?

It is my understanding that we do not repeat shmoneh esrei when we forget yaaleh v'yavo by maariv on rosh chodesh because maariv is a reshus. Based on this premise why do we repeat shmoneh esrei when we forget yaaleh v'yavo by maariv on chol hamoed?

tefilla rosh-chodesh-new-month chol-hamoed

6 hours later…

5:23 PM

Also re Phoenician/Hebrew: There does seem to be a slight difference, but unclear which came first. According to Wikipedia, Phoenician may have started c. 1000 BCE vs 1050 BCE for Proto/Paleo-Hebrew.

Also, interesting that each letter in the Phoenician alphabet also has a meaning, though the only overlaps I noticed were bet=house & mem=water Evidently this is because the Semitic alphabets can be traced back to hieroglyphs, which are certainly way older. (Neat: hieroglyph for dalet is dag and looked like a fish). And evidently Proto-Sinaitic/Canaanite came earlier than Hebrew as well... Here's a neat table showing the evolution: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Sinaitic_script#Synopsis

@Adám ^

3

Q: in search of: DanF

As I mentioned (here and here), the user DanF has not been online for a while. While I do not know this user at all personally, I feel there is some room for concern. For as long as I have been on this site, I recall that DanF is always an active participant. Not only does he not go long without ...

discussion users

6:23 PM

← 3 messages moved from The APL Orchard

@Adám Any thoughts on the alphabet stuff?

@AviF.S. Yes, but I'm currently overloaded with incoming connections. I'll get back to it later.

@Adám Of course! Sorry to bog you down

7:03 PM

@AviF.S. 1000=1050 when it comes to ancient history. The difference between "Phoenician" and "Paleo-Hebrew" is less than between your handwriting and mine, and you'd hardly call those distinct alphabets.

@AviF.S. The source is nonsense. They are simply mapping symbols that looks somewhat similar. It'd be like claiming a connection between the letter l (as in Lima) and the number 1!

@AviF.S. All the Hebrew letter names are readily read as proper words, though some require slight vowel changes (but the vowels are insignificant anyway). Alef=Aluf (Leader), Bet=Bait (Container), Gimal=Gamal (Camel), Dalet=Delet (Door), Hey=Haya (Was, i.e. Existence), Vav (Hook), Zayin (Tool), etc.

7:28 PM

@Adám Very interesting! Was not aware of the correspondence between the words and letters in Hebrew as well. Mayim and Bayit line up perfectly to their hieroglyph counterparts, then!

@Adám Granted re: time differential! Whether they're different alphabets seems a whole 'nother issue on which I'm not at all qualified. However hieroglyphs & Proto-Sinaitic/Canaanite are certainly far more ancient than either of the two. You're disputing the connection between those and Hebrew?

@Adám If so, do you mind clarifying your contention? Is it that Hebrew is the oldest language in its linguistic family?

Newly titled, judaism.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5323/in-search-of-danf

Nm, I thought that would show the title big

@Dr.Shmuel It'll "onebox" (the behavior you want) if you post the URL by itself as a message

Anyway, I just made a no-change edit to Meta-Man's message, which refreshed the onebox there

7:47 PM

Thanks! @IsaacMoses

8:04 PM

@AviF.S. It makes sense that "Proto-Sinaitic" would be a precursor to "Paleo-Hebrew". The symbols and languages certainly match. Hieroglyphs not so much. Sure, the languages are geographical neighbours, so there may be some influence or overlap (in either or both directions), but the fact that some pictographs match, isn't really surprising. I mean, the "man" symbol in Chinese looks similar to an ancient Hey too, and also to our symbol modern for men's toilet. Does that mean they are related?

@AviF.S. Well, that or that it isn't meaningful to distinguish between what was used back then with names that came much later. Similarly, the Vikings didn't speak or write Danish or Swedish, but a common ancestor of those. Without modern communications, writing an pronunciation was bound to have local variation.

@Adám "the "man" symbol in Chinese looks similar to an ancient Hey too," -- Is that accurate?

@Dr.Shmuel Perhaps he meant this one? 人

That part I thought he meant, it's the ancient Hey (or any other Hey I know) which I'm unsure about matching that look. @AviF.S.

I'm confused... The 'ancient' hey he meant was the one listed under Proto-Hebrew in this table, if that helps: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Sinaitic_script#Synopsis

@Moonchild?!?!? Did you just see the link in APLOrchard, or do you frequent this room?

Seems I misremembered. The symbol for woman is 女 compared to:

user image

8:13 PM

@Adám Ah, that makes sense! That'd be the Proto-Sinaitic hey, then

These are pretty obvious pictographs of a human being (though maybe the Chinese symbol has a womb). The male symbol 人 is afaik a simplification and used to have arms, while in its modern form, it only has a body and legs.

@Adám Granted! Am more than happy to compromise on setting aside Phoenician and hieroglyphs if I can have Proto- Sinatic & Canaanite

@Adám Ah, that's quite interesting! I like the womb hypothesis

@Adám If you're giving me those two languages being ancestors of Hebrew, then does that mean you're agreeing that Hebrew is not the oldest in its linguistic family?

Also compare Chinese Ox 牛 with Alef=Aluf (which also means "ox"): 𐤀

@AviF.S. What are you replying to?

My understanding when you initially opposed my saying that Hebrew came from Phoenician was more than just the particular, but rather that you were disagreeing that it should come from anything...

@Adám You agreeing that Proto-Sin/Can were related to Hebrew

I'm unsure of the entire scope of the converstation at hand, or what it concerns frankly, but I'd have to conclude that these are just some good old fasion false-cognates -- picto-style.

8:19 PM

@Adám Ah neat! That's yet another one that lines up with the hieroglyph, then!

@Dr.Shmuel Exactly my point.

@Dr.Shmuel I brought up in meeting-type-thing my understanding that Hebrew was descended from Phoenician, and @Adám disagreed

@AviF.S. Yes, but I think that the similarity of the ancient Hebrew symbol to the Chinese one indicates that we can't just make the connection to Egyptian based on the apparent similarity in shape and meaning.

It sort of ended there, but then I followed up here with my evidence

I'm less interested in which particular languages Hebrew descended from, and more just the idea that it did evolve from another.

@AviF.S. No, I'm saying that they are simply even older Hebrew, or alternatively, that what we call Hebrew today is simply modern Proto-Sinaitic.

8:21 PM

So that's what I was arguing...

@AviF.S. Modern Hebrew evolved from something that predated it. Whatever you prefer calling that predecessor is up to you, as long as you are aware that the speakers and writers of the predecessor probably didn't call it that. But using multiple more modern terms (for later branches) to create a false split in what was not distinguishable at the time is just wrong.

@Adám But there's already at least one Proto-Hebrew so the different names are certainly not from resistance to having multiple Hebrews. English is understood to be at least a thousand years old, despite it not even being mutually intelligible before the Norman Invasion...

So I'm not sure I see why scholars would have different names, if it was really just the evolution of one language...

@AviF.S. All these labels are as silly as trying to classify celestial bodies into stars, planets, moons, etc. It is a continuum, but people like putting things into neat (made-up) categories.

@Adám Well I am interested in having different names when the languages are not mutually intelligible and are used by different peoples with different cultures

It seems akin to saying all the Latin languages lie on a spectrum, and that they all are just different modern Roman dialects. It's true, but it doesn't seem particularly useful

A language is a dialect with an army and navy

"A language is a dialect with an army and navy" is a quip about the arbitrariness of the distinction between a dialect and a language. It points out the influence that social and political conditions can have over a community's perception of the status of a language or dialect. The facetious adage was popularized by sociolinguist and Yiddish scholar Max Weinreich, who heard it from a member of the audience at one of his lectures. == Weinreich == This statement is usually attributed to Max Weinreich, a specialist in Yiddish linguistics, who expressed it in Yiddish: אַ שפּראַך איז אַ דיאַלעקט מיט...

8:29 PM

:)

@Adám I do really love that! And I'm aware that there's no objective measure for the difference between the two

However, my understanding is that linguists try to classify dialects as different languages as soon as they're no longer mutually intelligible

This is of course not a hard science, but it's not entirely arbitrary either

@AviF.S. Not at all so. It is mostly just politics. The intelligibility rule would make Danish and Norwegian Bokmål dialects, or actually it'd make Norwegian Bokmål a dialect of Danish, but Danish a distinct language from Norwegian Bokmål.

@AviF.S. From Wikipedia:

> From a traditional linguistic perspective, Phoenician was composed of a variety of dialects. However, the very slight differences in language and the insufficient records of the time make it unclear whether Phoenician formed a separate and united dialect or was merely a superficially defined part of a broader language continuum.

@Adám Ah well. At least in the dispassionate context of history where politics is no longer a swaying force I'd imagine they'd classify it the way I stated

@Adám Nvm, that might invalidate what I said

@AviF.S. And about Ammonite (which would be a sister-language of Phoenician if that would even make sense):

> As far as can be determined from the small corpus, it was extremely similar to Biblical Hebrew, with some possible Aramaic influence including the use of the verb ‘bd (עבד) instead of the more common Biblical Hebrew ‘śh (עשה) for 'make'.

(But note that it is perfectly normal to use עבד in Hebrew too, just more rare.)

> According to Glottolog, referencing Huehnergard & Rubin (2011), Ammonite was not a distinct language from Hebrew.

> According to Glottolog, referencing Huehnergard & Rubin (2011), Moabite was not a distinct language from Hebrew.

> According to Glottolog, referencing Huehnergard & Rubin (2011), Edomite was not a distinct language from Hebrew but a Hebraic dialect.

@Adám Well these are all sister-Canaanite languages and these are the Canaanite peoples:

> The Canaanites are broadly defined to include the Israelites (including Judeans and Samaritans), Phoenicians (including parts of Carthaginians), Amorites, Ammonites, Moabites, Edomites, Suteans, Ekronites and Amalekites.

So given that they were different peoples & different political entities, it only seems fair to count them as separate languages

8:40 PM

@AviF.S. Yup, collectively called "Phoenicians" in Greek. But nobody self-identified as Phoenician. They all spoke and wrote the same language, possibly with minor dialectal variations and minor differences in letter shapes (something that computers are eradicating for Latin letters and Arabic numerals).

@AviF.S. Yes, but again, only because of politics (≈religion, at the time), not because of an objective difference.

And Proto-Canaanite would then be the ancestor of all these languages, before they even split into all these subcultures. Which would make it arrogant, methinks, to call proto-Canaanite 'ancient Ammonite', 'ancient Phoenician' or 'ancient Hebrew'

@Adám Here I can agree with that being a sufficient reason

@Adám I find this confusing. If one reads the wiki, it seems abundantly clear that they were their own peoples. And pretty evident that they were not Hebrews given their practice (sarcophagi and such)

@AviF.S. Exactly my point. But people like to claim that theirs is the original one. Just look at the huge conflict over the name Macedonia (the Wikipedia article is even marked as being too long!).

Whether or not 'America' means the US or South+North doesn't mean all the civ. within it are equivalent

@Adám Exactly your point? I thought you were saying these are all ancient Hebrew?

@AviF.S. Yeah, Wikipedia is a mess on this subject, and it is mostly built on theories and opinions and interpretations, all of which are based on out-of-context fragments and inscriptions, none of which have vowels!

@AviF.S. Yes. I'm allowed to be arrogant, no?

@Adám But I thought the Phoenicians were a relatively well-documented civilization? At least, certainly so enough for it to be abundantly clear that they were not Hebrews, unless everything we are to understood about ancient Hebrews is wrong

@Adám Hahahaha, yes, of course!

8:47 PM

10

Q: לשון הקדש: the oldest language?

Rashi to B'reshis 2:23 says that the language Adam spoke was one that Rashi calls לשון הקדש, lashon hakodesh (or l'shon hakodesh), and that contains the words אִשָּׁה and אִישׁ. Keeping to Rashi's nomenclature but abbreviating, I'll here call it lhk. The Tora is written in lhk, as evidenced by th...

@AviF.S. Not, "Phoenicians" are not well-documented:

> The term Phoenicia is an exonym originating from ancient Greek that most likely described Tyrian purple, a major export of Canaanite port towns; it did not correspond precisely to Phoenician culture or society as it would have been understood natively. Scholars thus debate whether the Phoenicians were actually a distinct civilization from the Canaanites and other residents of the Levant.

@Adám Fascinating! Well whatever distinct-or-not-so-distinct peoples they were, or were a part of, they certainly were separate from the Hebrews given what we know about the maybe-not-so-distinct peoples

They built warships, even! Not so Hebrew, methinks

@Adám Anyway, seems pretty clear from reading about the civilization, whatever it was, that it came long before Judah/Israel and lasted after it. And that their practices were compatible neither with the Hebrews/Israelites

9:04 PM

@AviF.S. So? If Avraham was called "ha'ivri" because he spoke "ivri" then Hebrew would predate Juda/Israel too.

@Adám Sorry?

My point was simply that Phoenician ⊄ Hebrew & Hebrew ⊄ Phoenician

@AviF.S. Wait, culture or language?

Culture, culture

But then we decided that because they were such different political entities/cultures, that they were different languages

Although, I don't remember how we got here, do you?

@AviF.S. Nobody is disputing that there were other cultures than the ancestors of today's Jews. The Bible speaks of them at length!

@Adám Yes, that's true...

9:09 PM

@AviF.S. Yes, but only politically, not practically. In reality, they all spoke and wrote the same language (continuum).

But that means that were other distinct languages, and I suppose the point was that's why it'd be arrogant to classify Proto-Canaanite as ancient Hebrew

4 hours ago, by Avi F. S.

Also re Phoenician/Hebrew: There does seem to be a slight difference, but unclear which came first. According to Wikipedia, Phoenician may have started c. 1000 BCE vs 1050 BCE for Proto/Paleo-Hebrew.

@Adám Ah yes, well there's still that issue

@Adám OUCH!!! 4 hours ago?!??!?!??!?!?!?!?!?

So I was disputing that. It isn't unclear what came first, because they are all the same. Only politics causes the articifial distinction.

@Adám Of course! I remember the seed.

But if you already conceded that you were just being 'arrogant' :p Your words not mine, then I don't remember why I was arguing that Phoenician ≠ Hebrew

Doesn't that mean we've settled it? There were a whole group of sister Canaanite languages/dialects/whatever. One (theoretical) ancestor to all of these. Therefore it's not simply 'ancient (insert sister-language here).' Rather it's the original, or proto, Canaanite language...

But everyone likes to claim things as their own, so you like to think of it as Ancient Hebrew, regardless of how precise it might be. It's certainly not false, just misleading

9:14 PM

Yes, I agree that this settles it. My self-claimed arrogance is a bit tongue-in-cheek, as I'm also saying that it is just a modern label.

Is there any disagreement with that synopsis?

@AviF.S. Yes: Whence "Canaanite"? (Oh man, here we go!)

@Adám Haha, of course! I completely got the tongue-in-cheek. Just decided to use it against you :p

@Adám Sorry?

@AviF.S. The Canaanites were just one of the many people that spoke and wrote the same language!

\sorry brb in just a few!

@Adám Still brb, but might answer quickly!

I'm completely agreed, it just seems to be the catch-all term used for the region. But I know understand the disagreement given that the catch-all could just as well be Hebrew...

Anyway, that part is semantic, which I guess is your whole point

More accurate, I suppose, is to come up with another name for the region, which isn't already claimed by anyone

Wikipedia:

> The word Canaanites serves as an ethnic catch-all term covering various indigenous populations—both settled and nomadic-pastoral groups—throughout the regions of the southern Levant or Canaan.

> Biblical scholar Mark Smith notes that archaeological data suggests "that the Israelite culture largely overlapped with and derived from Canaanite culture... In short, Israelite culture was largely Canaanite in nature."

9:20 PM

Exactly. The modern term includes the Israelites, but that wasn't the case back then, as the Israelites listed the Canaanites as one of their many enemies, so clearly they did not consider themselves Canaanites.

@AviF.S. Semitic.

Actually, I quoted this earlier:

> The Canaanites are broadly defined to include the Israelites (including Judeans and Samaritans), Phoenicians (including parts of Carthaginians), Amorites, Ammonites, Moabites, Edomites, Suteans, Ekronites and Amalekites.

@AviF.S. Yes, so this clearly demonstrates a disconnect between the name's meaning now and then.

So it seems they're not a peoples in and of themselves technically/historically/by linguists/anthropologists/etc.

In the Bible they were referred to as a people, but evidently not today

@AviF.S. Yes they were, modern "scholars" just make a mess of it all, just like the Greeks did with the meaningless term "Phoenician".

BRB

9:25 PM

They were all Semitic (i.e. descendants of Shem) people that spoke the language Shem spoke. But now we're reaching the point where Wikipedia lists hypotheses and dates with huge error margins, but which nevertheless corresponds more or less with the chronology given by the Bible.

@AviF.S. ^ (Wikipedia:Shem) corresponds well with what we can observe linguistically. It would be silly to call anything Hebrew ("Eberi") before Eber, but you can also see that Moabite would be an Eberi dialect, just like the dialect Abraham spoke. Aram(aic) is further removed. Still a Shem(itic) language, though.

And Edomite would be even closer to our Hebrew than Moabite and Ammonite (those two being very close).

9:58 PM

@Adám My goodness! Well that's incredibly interesting, but a whole 'nother can of worms! Do you mind if we return to it later?

@AviF.S. Not at all, as long as it isn't later tonight :-)

2 hours later…

11:32 PM

@Dr.Shmuel answer posted. B"H, DanF is perfectly fine.

3

« first day (3331 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (1413 days later) »

Transcript for

Jun '2023

V'dibarta Bam

"And speak of them" (Deut. 6:7) This is the main Mi Yodeya com...

join this room
about this room

00:00

06:00

12:00

18:00

all times are UTC

site design / logo © 2024 Stack Exchange Inc; legal

mobile