Linguistic evidence and the dating of qoheleth dating a polish woman

”), proposes that a (historical) sociolinguistic variationist approach can help to clarify the relationship between Early Biblical Hebrew (EBH) and Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH) linguistic variables (e.g., as [n] or [ŋ] in Norwich, England) how a variationist analysis can be helpful for understanding language variation.(In the present context, a simplified definition of the “variationist approach” might be “a quantitative analysis of two or more linguistic variables, or ways of saying the same thing, as a way of detecting language change.”) Chapter 2 (“ Linguistic Dating of Biblical Hebrew Texts: A Survey of Scholarship”) reviews research on the linguistic development of BH, beginning with the period from Wilhelm Gesenius (usually considered the father of the diachronic study of BH) to Yechezkel Kutscher (Hurvitz's teacher), followed by a discussion of the work of Robert Polzin and a longer treatment of the work of Hurvitz, and their followers, and continuing with a summary of the work of scholars who have challenged various fundamental presuppositions and methods in previous scholarship.

This slender monograph is a revision of a Yale University Ph. dissertation (2011) written under the supervision of Robert R. The catalyst for the research was the decade-long (and continuing) debate between Avi Hurvitz and other “consensus” scholars or “traditionalists” on the one hand and Ian Young, Martin Ehrensvärd, myself, and other “challengers” on the other, regarding the possibility of determining the dates of origin of Biblical Hebrew (BH) writings on the basis of their linguistic characteristics (pp. Aside from the standard front and back matters, the body of the book has six chapters.

Chapter 1 (“ Introduction”) introduces the problem (“ Can we date biblical texts [to the preexilic vs.

postexilic period] only on the basis of linguistic evidence?

Kim discusses several of the foundational ideas of sociolinguistics (the discipline dealing with the relationship between language and society) and historical sociolinguistics, such as linguistic variation and variationist analysis, and he explains how he will apply such concepts to the corpus of BH.

In particular, he introduces the distinction between linguistic or dependent variables on the one hand, and independent variables or factors which condition variant linguistic forms/uses on the other.