Using Linguistic Difference in Relative Text Dating: Insights from other Historical Linguistic Case Studies
The article addresses the question as to how optimistic we can be about the possibility and accuracy in converting linguistic typology into linguistic chronology. Applying the insights from standard text books on historical linguistic theory and the implementation of these insights in two particular...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
The National Association of Professors of Hebrew
2006
|
| In: |
Hebrew studies
Year: 2006, Volume: 47, Issue: 1, Pages: 93-114 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (JSTOR) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | The article addresses the question as to how optimistic we can be about the possibility and accuracy in converting linguistic typology into linguistic chronology. Applying the insights from standard text books on historical linguistic theory and the implementation of these insights in two particular case studies—namely the dating of Old English and Eddic (Old Norse) Poetry—the article argues for a balanced view on the possibility of determining the chronological stage(s) of the Hebrew language represented by biblical texts embedded and preserved in late copies from the second century B.C.E. or later. As historical linguists in general use a very restrained language in describing the possibility of dating texts linguistically, we should expect historical Hebrew linguists to be equally cautious. However, since the case studies reveal at least some reasons for describing linguistic criteria for dating autographs or earlier copies of texts in late, extant manuscripts, we should also expect enough evidence to establish some kind of diachronic grid in the development of the Hebrew language that can be used for at least a relative dating of texts that cannot be dated on other grounds. Especially Hurvitz's focus on lexicographical change and Eskhult's on loanwords seem promising areas in this regard. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2158-1681 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Hebrew studies
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1353/hbr.2006.0019 |