Geoffrey Khan | University of Cambridge (original) (raw)
Festschrift by Geoffrey Khan
Article by Geoffrey Khan
The Oxford Handbook of Vowel Harmony, edited by Nancy A. Ritter and Harry van der Hulst, 593–602. Oxford: Oxford University Press., 2024
In Linguistic and Philological Studies of the Hebrew Bible and Its Manuscripts in Honor of Gary A. Rendsburg, edited by Vincent D. Beiler and Aaron D. Rubin, 50–72. Leiden-Boston: Brill., 2023
New Perspectives in Biblical and Rabbinic Hebrew, edited by Aaron D. Hornkohl and Geoffrey Khan, 299–354. Cambridge Semitic Languages and Cultures 7. Cambridge: University of Cambridge & Open Book Publishers, 2021., 2021
The paper argues that the discourse dependency of Biblical Hebrew consecutive weqaṭal and wayyiqṭ... more The paper argues that the discourse dependency of Biblical Hebrew consecutive weqaṭal and wayyiqṭol forms is encoded in their semantic structure and is not just an implicature of the context. This is a heritage of their historical origin in subordinate constructions with temporal integration between clauses. The historical development of consecutive weqaṭal and wayyiqṭol proposed has typological parallels in Neo-Aramaic and involves the extension through schematisation of constructions containing dependent clauses (apodosis and purpose clause, respectively). The old narrative construction of waw + past perfective yiqṭol expressing chains of events was preserved due to a process in which it was reanalysed as an extension of a different, but structurally similar, construction, viz. waw + jussive yiqṭol.
The full volume containing this paper can be downloaded from https://www.openbookpublishers.com/product/1392.
This is the latest volume in the open-access series Cambridge Semitic Languages and Cultures (https:// www.openbookpublishers.com/section/107/1).
In the Middle Ages Biblical Hebrew was transmitted in a variety of oral reading traditions, which... more In the Middle Ages Biblical Hebrew was transmitted in a variety of oral reading traditions, which became textualized in systems of vocalization signs. The two most important oral traditions were the Tiberian and the Babylonian, which were represented by different vocalization sign systems. These two oral traditions had their origins in ancient Palestine. Although closely related, they exhibit several differences. These include differences in syllable and metrical structure. This paper examines how the syllable and metrical structure of the two traditions reflected by the medieval vocalization sign systems should be reconstructed. The Tiberian tradition exhibits an 'onset typology' of syllabification, where word-internal /CCC/ clusters are syllabified /C.CC/ and word-initial clusters are syllabified within the onset /CC-/. The Babylonian tradition exhibits a right-to-left computation of syllables resulting in a 'coda typology,' whereby the second consonant of a word-internal sequence /CCC/ is syllabified as a coda, viz. /CC.C/, and word-initial clusters are syllabified C.C, with the first consonant extra-syllabic.
The Tiberian reading tradition of the Hebrew Bible contains a variety of features that point to i... more The Tiberian reading tradition of the Hebrew Bible contains a variety of features that point to its origin in the Second Temple period. Once such feature is the careful reading of the inflected forms of the verbs ה יָ הָ and ה יָ חָ to ensure that they are not confused. The paper directs particular attention to the lengthening of the vowels of the prefix conjugation (imperfect) of these verbs, which can be reconstructed from medieval sources. It is argued through comparison with the Babylonian tradition of Biblical Hebrew that this lengthening is an orthoepic feature that has its roots in the Second Temple Period. This demonstrates that the priestly authorities who were concerned with the careful preservation of the written text were also concerned with the careful preservation of the orally transmitted reading tradition. The Tiberian vocalization signs and accents were created by the Masoretes of Tiberias in the early Islamic period to record an oral tradition of reading. There is evidence that this reading tradition had its roots in the Second Temple period , although some features of it appear to have developed in later centuries.1
There is no consensus in the scholarly literature as to the pronunciation of the dageš in the Bib... more There is no consensus in the scholarly literature as to the pronunciation of the dageš in the Biblical Hebrew plural form ים ּתִ ּבָ 'houses'. This article examines the evidence for the way the dageš was pronounced in this word in medieval sources that give us direct access to the Tiberian Masoretic reading tradition. It is shown that there was some degree of diversity of pronunciation across different biblical verses and different sub-traditions of the Tiberian Hebrew pronunciation. An explanation for the existence of the dageš in the word is offered on the basis of comparative evidence within Biblical Hebrew reading traditions and other Semitic languages. HOW WAS THE DAGEŠ IN BIBLICAL HEBREW ים ּתִ ּבָ PRONOUNCED? 324
The North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic (NENA) dialects, which are the focus of this paper, were spoken acr... more The North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic (NENA) dialects, which are the focus of this paper, were spoken across a wide area encompassing northern Iraq, north-west Iran, south-eastern Turkey, Armenia and Georgia. In these spoken dialects a distinction should be made between two major types of Left Dislocation (LD) structures. In one type the initial item is prosodically and grammatically integrated with what follows. The initial item is prosodically integrated in that it is not separated from what follows by an intonation group boundary. The initial item is resumed in the clause by a pronominal affix, as opposed to an independent pronoun or a full nominal. Such initial items have all the semantic and functional properties of normal grammatical subjects. These are referred to as LD1 structures. A distinct type of construction is where the initial item is less integrated prosodically and/or structurally with what follows. This is referred to as an LD2 structure. This includes cases where the initial item is separated from what follows by an intonation group boundary. Another strategy for disjoining the initial item from the rest of the clause is the resumption of the initial item by an independent pronoun. Moreover, an additional structure in which the initial element is less integrated into the clause than LD1 constructions is where the resumptive element is a full nominal rather than a pronoun. An initial item in a LD2 structure is restricted to nominals that are topical, i.e. they function as the informational pivot or starting point of the following clause and typically their referent is identifiable from the context. The initial item of an LD1 structure, however, can have a variety of other types of status, including narrow focus. In this respect they correspond functionally to clause-initial subjects. When a clause-initial item has topical status, whether it be subject, an LD1 item or an LD2 item, the basic function of the construction is to express the onset of a discourse section and, if it occurs within the body of the discourse, a disjunction of some kind from what precedes. This includes not only topic shift, but also other types of discourse shifts, such as foreground to background or change in the level of description. In some cases, an LD1 construction is more normal than a construction with the grammatical subject in initial position, and indeed in some cases it is obligatory. This has given rise to diachronic change whereby the original grammatical subject of the construction has been re-analysed as having a different syntactic status.
The Oxford Handbook of Vowel Harmony, edited by Nancy A. Ritter and Harry van der Hulst, 593–602. Oxford: Oxford University Press., 2024
In Linguistic and Philological Studies of the Hebrew Bible and Its Manuscripts in Honor of Gary A. Rendsburg, edited by Vincent D. Beiler and Aaron D. Rubin, 50–72. Leiden-Boston: Brill., 2023
New Perspectives in Biblical and Rabbinic Hebrew, edited by Aaron D. Hornkohl and Geoffrey Khan, 299–354. Cambridge Semitic Languages and Cultures 7. Cambridge: University of Cambridge & Open Book Publishers, 2021., 2021
The paper argues that the discourse dependency of Biblical Hebrew consecutive weqaṭal and wayyiqṭ... more The paper argues that the discourse dependency of Biblical Hebrew consecutive weqaṭal and wayyiqṭol forms is encoded in their semantic structure and is not just an implicature of the context. This is a heritage of their historical origin in subordinate constructions with temporal integration between clauses. The historical development of consecutive weqaṭal and wayyiqṭol proposed has typological parallels in Neo-Aramaic and involves the extension through schematisation of constructions containing dependent clauses (apodosis and purpose clause, respectively). The old narrative construction of waw + past perfective yiqṭol expressing chains of events was preserved due to a process in which it was reanalysed as an extension of a different, but structurally similar, construction, viz. waw + jussive yiqṭol.
The full volume containing this paper can be downloaded from https://www.openbookpublishers.com/product/1392.
This is the latest volume in the open-access series Cambridge Semitic Languages and Cultures (https:// www.openbookpublishers.com/section/107/1).
In the Middle Ages Biblical Hebrew was transmitted in a variety of oral reading traditions, which... more In the Middle Ages Biblical Hebrew was transmitted in a variety of oral reading traditions, which became textualized in systems of vocalization signs. The two most important oral traditions were the Tiberian and the Babylonian, which were represented by different vocalization sign systems. These two oral traditions had their origins in ancient Palestine. Although closely related, they exhibit several differences. These include differences in syllable and metrical structure. This paper examines how the syllable and metrical structure of the two traditions reflected by the medieval vocalization sign systems should be reconstructed. The Tiberian tradition exhibits an 'onset typology' of syllabification, where word-internal /CCC/ clusters are syllabified /C.CC/ and word-initial clusters are syllabified within the onset /CC-/. The Babylonian tradition exhibits a right-to-left computation of syllables resulting in a 'coda typology,' whereby the second consonant of a word-internal sequence /CCC/ is syllabified as a coda, viz. /CC.C/, and word-initial clusters are syllabified C.C, with the first consonant extra-syllabic.
The Tiberian reading tradition of the Hebrew Bible contains a variety of features that point to i... more The Tiberian reading tradition of the Hebrew Bible contains a variety of features that point to its origin in the Second Temple period. Once such feature is the careful reading of the inflected forms of the verbs ה יָ הָ and ה יָ חָ to ensure that they are not confused. The paper directs particular attention to the lengthening of the vowels of the prefix conjugation (imperfect) of these verbs, which can be reconstructed from medieval sources. It is argued through comparison with the Babylonian tradition of Biblical Hebrew that this lengthening is an orthoepic feature that has its roots in the Second Temple Period. This demonstrates that the priestly authorities who were concerned with the careful preservation of the written text were also concerned with the careful preservation of the orally transmitted reading tradition. The Tiberian vocalization signs and accents were created by the Masoretes of Tiberias in the early Islamic period to record an oral tradition of reading. There is evidence that this reading tradition had its roots in the Second Temple period , although some features of it appear to have developed in later centuries.1
There is no consensus in the scholarly literature as to the pronunciation of the dageš in the Bib... more There is no consensus in the scholarly literature as to the pronunciation of the dageš in the Biblical Hebrew plural form ים ּתִ ּבָ 'houses'. This article examines the evidence for the way the dageš was pronounced in this word in medieval sources that give us direct access to the Tiberian Masoretic reading tradition. It is shown that there was some degree of diversity of pronunciation across different biblical verses and different sub-traditions of the Tiberian Hebrew pronunciation. An explanation for the existence of the dageš in the word is offered on the basis of comparative evidence within Biblical Hebrew reading traditions and other Semitic languages. HOW WAS THE DAGEŠ IN BIBLICAL HEBREW ים ּתִ ּבָ PRONOUNCED? 324
The North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic (NENA) dialects, which are the focus of this paper, were spoken acr... more The North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic (NENA) dialects, which are the focus of this paper, were spoken across a wide area encompassing northern Iraq, north-west Iran, south-eastern Turkey, Armenia and Georgia. In these spoken dialects a distinction should be made between two major types of Left Dislocation (LD) structures. In one type the initial item is prosodically and grammatically integrated with what follows. The initial item is prosodically integrated in that it is not separated from what follows by an intonation group boundary. The initial item is resumed in the clause by a pronominal affix, as opposed to an independent pronoun or a full nominal. Such initial items have all the semantic and functional properties of normal grammatical subjects. These are referred to as LD1 structures. A distinct type of construction is where the initial item is less integrated prosodically and/or structurally with what follows. This is referred to as an LD2 structure. This includes cases where the initial item is separated from what follows by an intonation group boundary. Another strategy for disjoining the initial item from the rest of the clause is the resumption of the initial item by an independent pronoun. Moreover, an additional structure in which the initial element is less integrated into the clause than LD1 constructions is where the resumptive element is a full nominal rather than a pronoun. An initial item in a LD2 structure is restricted to nominals that are topical, i.e. they function as the informational pivot or starting point of the following clause and typically their referent is identifiable from the context. The initial item of an LD1 structure, however, can have a variety of other types of status, including narrow focus. In this respect they correspond functionally to clause-initial subjects. When a clause-initial item has topical status, whether it be subject, an LD1 item or an LD2 item, the basic function of the construction is to express the onset of a discourse section and, if it occurs within the body of the discourse, a disjunction of some kind from what precedes. This includes not only topic shift, but also other types of discourse shifts, such as foreground to background or change in the level of description. In some cases, an LD1 construction is more normal than a construction with the grammatical subject in initial position, and indeed in some cases it is obligatory. This has given rise to diachronic change whereby the original grammatical subject of the construction has been re-analysed as having a different syntactic status.
Arabic Documents from Medieval Nubia, 2024
This volume presents an edition of a corpus of Arabic documents datable to the 11th and 12th cent... more This volume presents an edition of a corpus of Arabic documents datable to the 11th
and 12th centuries AD that were discovered by the Egypt Exploration Society at
the site of the Nubian fortress Qaṣr Ibrīm (situated in the south of modern Egypt).
The edition of the documents is accompanied by English translations and a detailed
analysis of their contents and historical background.
The documents throw new light on relations between Egypt and Nubia in the High
Middle Ages, especially in the Fatimid period. They are of particular importance
since previous historical studies from the perspective of Arabic sources have been almost
entirely based on historiographical sources, often written a long time after the
events described and distorted by tendentious points of view.
https://www.openbookpublishers.com/product/1167
https://www.openbookpublishers.com/product/1112
https://www.openbookpublishers.com/product/951
![Research paper thumbnail of Geoffrey Khan, *The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Barwar*, [Vol. 1 Grammar. Vol. 2 Lexicon. Vol. 3 Texts.] (Leiden: Brill, 2008); 2175pp.](https://attachments.academia-assets.com/57865546/thumbnails/1.jpg)
](
7 Most of the papers in this volume originated as presenta� ons at the conference Biblical Hebrew... more 7 Most of the papers in this volume originated as presenta� ons at the conference Biblical Hebrew and Rabbinic Hebrew: New Perspecti ves in Philology and Linguisti cs, which was held at the University of Cambridge, 8–10th July, 2019. The aim of the conference was to build bridges between various strands of research in the fi eld of Hebrew language studies that rarely meet, namely philologists working on Biblical Hebrew, philologists working on Rabbinic Hebrew and theore� cal linguists.
Semitic Languages and Cultures, 2020