Re: How about a typology for input methods

Peter T. Daniels wrote:

>Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
>
>
>>Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Texts other than Tanakh are not pointed (unless they're children's
>>>editions). Have you looked in the Mishnah, the Qabbalistic texts, etc.?
>>>Rabbinic correspondence from the past millennium?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>But that simply is not TRUE. That's why I wrote to correct you. It is
>>NOT the case that texts other than the Tanakh are not pointed. Have YOU
>>looked at recent editions of the Mishnah? I can scan you a
>>
>>
>
>for babies
>
>

Don't make me laugh. An _entire_ Mishna, all six orders, all pointed?
I know LOTS of big strong grown-ups who study from it; it's pretty much
the standard edition.

>>fully-pointed one. Have YOU looked at ANY prayer-book printed in the
>>last ~500 years? Even the non-Biblical prayers are fully pointed. Have
>>
>>
>
>for babies
>
>

No, and in fact it's hard to find an *un*pointed prayer book. Even big
grown-up rabbis use pointed Hebrew texts. If you don't believe me, ask
a few. How many Orthodox synagogues have you been in lately? If you've
checked out a couple, you'll have seen that even the Big People have
pointed books.

>And the Masoretes would be scandalized.
>
>

So what? I'm just pointing out that the vowels ARE used for
non-Biblical texts, and have been for at least the past few centuries
and probably longer (even very early prayer-books were all pointed).

Shall I scan... let's see... A passover Haggadah from 1520... A
piyyut(!) from c. 1427 (handwritten, of course)... A piyyut from a 12th
century Haggadah... or one from c. 1400 or c. 1460... I can find others;
I have some books on old Hebrew printing and manuscripts.

I don't really see any evidence that the pointing was even *intended* to
be solely for the Bible. I've never seen any indication that this is
so; in fact mostly I've seen points used *when needed* all along. It
may indeed be as you say, but I've never seen any indication of it.

>>YOU so much as looked at the Hebrew translation of The Lord of the
>>Rings? Every poem (*poem*, mind you) in that book is completely
>>pointed, every dot and dash. Just like I said. Have YOU read ANY
>>Modern Hebrew poetry? Go get a book of (the recently deceased) Naomi
>>Shemer's poetry, or Yehuda Amichai, or go father back and look at Hayim
>>Nachman Bialik's. They're all pointed very very carefully.
>>
>>
>
>Will the Penguin (or maybe Pelican) bilingual anthology of Modern Hebrew
>Poetry do? Unpointed.
>
>

Apparently not, since just about every Modern Hebrew poem I've seen
printed in any serious way is pointed. You can't analyze the scansion
otherwise!

>>>>And it isn't just "occasionally"; Hebrew poetry is and has been
>>>>regularly *completely* pointed, every dagesh (light and heavy), every
>>>>shewa, every patah and qamats. Hebrew prosodic analysis (among other
>>>>things) requires it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>If piyyutim were pointed, they would be a lot less difficult to
>>>interpret. Also, I suspect, much less susceptible of multiple
>>>interpretation.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>But they are pointed. Go get hold of any decent prayer-book: they're
>>pointed up down and backwards (and a good thing, too, because they'd be
>>
>>
>
>Some tiny selection of piyyutim are printed in prayer books, and they're
>pointed for babies.
>
>

Tiny selection? Find a really decent mahzor and go through page after
page of piyyutim. I'm actually inclined to believe they were pointed by
the authors, since it's mighty tough to add points to text that
complex. It may not be so, but it seems likely to me. There are MANY
MANY piyyutim that are pointed for EVERYONE. Saying it's otherwise
doesn't make it so. And before you say that saying it is so doesn't
make it so, go and ask a few other Orthodox Jews and see if their
prayer-books (and the zillions of grace-after-meals booklets given out
at weddings, etc...) are pointed.

>>almost unreadable otherwise: the words are pretty obscure). It's quite
>>possible
>>
>>
>
>It's quite certain
>
>

I have no evidence to the contrary, but I personally find it hard to
believe that the pointing was added later.

>>that the pointing was added later and not by the original
>>authors, but that isn't the point.
>>
>>
>
>Of course it is. The editors imposed a particular interpretation of the
>many possible ones intended by the poets.
>
>

I don't think so. I think your command of obscure Hebrew grammar is not
quite so extensive as you think. And at any rate, it *still* isn't the
point: the point is that that vowels ARE used for non-Biblical texts, no
matter who added them.

~mark