Ivri Bunis
אני מרצה ללשון חז"ל וארמית בחוג ללשון העברית באוניברסיטת חיפה. כתבתי את עבודת הדוקטורט שלי בהנחיית פרופ' סטיב פסברג באוניברסיטה העברית בירושלים (2018). לאחר סיום הדוקטורט הצטרפתי כעמית מחקר לסגל החוג ללשון העברית באוניברסיטת קיימברידג' ושיתפתי פעולה עם פרופ' ג'פרי כאן ופרופ' מיכאל רנד ז"ל (2018–2021).
I am a lecturer (assistant professor) in Rabbinic Hebrew and Aramaic in the Department of Hebrew Language at the University of Haifa, a position I began in 2021. I wrote my doctoral dissertation on the morphosyntax of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine period under the supervision of Prof. Steven E. Fassberg of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (2018). Following the completion of my doctoral studies, I joined the Department of Hebrew at the University of Cambridge as a research associate (2018-2021), cooperating with Prof. Geoffrey Khan and Prof. Michael Rand z"l.
Supervisors: Prof. Steven E. Fassberg
I am a lecturer (assistant professor) in Rabbinic Hebrew and Aramaic in the Department of Hebrew Language at the University of Haifa, a position I began in 2021. I wrote my doctoral dissertation on the morphosyntax of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine period under the supervision of Prof. Steven E. Fassberg of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (2018). Following the completion of my doctoral studies, I joined the Department of Hebrew at the University of Cambridge as a research associate (2018-2021), cooperating with Prof. Geoffrey Khan and Prof. Michael Rand z"l.
Supervisors: Prof. Steven E. Fassberg
less
Related Authors
InterestsView All (11)
Uploads
Papers by Ivri Bunis
In turn, the situation in the Late Western Aramaic found in Pentateuchal Targum fragments from the Cairo Genizah, where pronominal objects are only expressed periphrastically through /yāt-/ with all verb forms, is likely a literary phenomenon: Confusion about the expression of specific pronominal objects with specific verb forms in speech precipitated complete avoidance of expression of pronominal objects through verbal inflection.
Full publication available at: https://www.openbookpublishers.com/books/10.11647/obp.0463/chapters/10.11647/obp.0463.31
and the possibility that their ancestral language, Hebrew, had influenced their unique dialects of Aramaic. The present article aims to illuminate these understudied questions by analyzing the syntax of the lexeme אפשר ʾpšr, unique to Rabbinic Hebrew and the Jewish dialects of Qumran, Targumic, and Talmudic Aramaic from Palestine and Babylonia. This lexeme, and its shared syntax among those languages and dialects,
points to an early use of language to maintain ethnic and religious distinctness among Jews in antiquity.
features, developed in the Middle Ages or later, after the end of the talmudic period in the 7th century CE. Even earlier, however, Jews spoke a variety of languages, which could potentially have developed into Jewish languages. Such language included the Aramaic dialects spoken by Jews in the Land of Israel and elsewhere in the Near East during the Roman and Byzantine periods (respectively, 1st-4th centuries and 4th-7th centuries CE). In contrast with later Jewish languages, however, it has been a matter of debate to what extent the Aramaic of late antique Jews also acquired features, under the influence of Hebrew and Jewish life, which distinguished them from Aramaic dialects spoken by non-Jews. The
present article aims to demonstrate that Talmudic Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, i.e., the language of Talmud Yerushalmi and similar rabbinic literature from Byzantine Palestine was indeed a Jewish language. Focusing on the form כדיי kəday, the article shows how in the Aramaic dialect of the Jewish authors of those texts, the form כדיי kəday was borrowed from Rabbinic Hebrew, being preferred over the native Aramaic form כמסת kəmissat which had already existed, and which had a largely identical function. I interpret the adoption of Hebrew כדיי kəday as reflecting the prestige of Hebrew among Jewish speakers, and possibly a Jewish religious connotation that the Hebrew form had. The same Hebrew form was subsequently borrowed into several later Jewish languages as well.
subordinating particle ש־ is irregular. Alongside its usual spelling ש־, it is
sporadically written שה־, and both forms are attached to the following word. In all vocalized occurrences of שה־, the letter heh is silent, even though wordinternal heh not indicating the consonant /h/ is very unusual in Hebrew orthography. This has prompted a number of scholarly explanations for the orthography שה־, but as the present article shows, previous explanations must be ruled out because they contradict well-established Hebrew orthographic norms. The present article reexamines the orthography שה־ and offers a new explanation, which links it to other phenomena typical of Late and Postbiblical Hebrew. In order to explain the orthography שה־, the article argues that one must take into account linguistic phenomena that were much more common in spoken Hebrew than in the literary registers documented by the surviving vocalized texts and reading traditions. Unlike previous explanations, the present article proposes that the silent heh is a hypercorrection in a linguistic reality where guttural consonants weakened in spoken Hebrew and the consonant /h/ tended to be elided after subordinating ש־.
and mood (TAM) distinctions in two closely related languages:
Western Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic. It compares their shared
cognate verbal paradigms, shows the overlap and differences in
their grammatical functions and discusses the independent parallel
developments such as the innovation of new verbal constructions.
It will demonstrate that the Western Neo-Aramaic conservatism
and resilience to contact-induced change in its verbal system is
striking in light of its prolonged and close contact with Syrian
Arabic and the morphological similarities between the Western
Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic verbal paradigms—factors which
have been found to
Late- and Neo-Aramaic dialects witness dramatic changes in nominal morphology; a marked reduction in allomorphy can be seen in the noun base (trilateral root+morphological pattern), in inflectional morphemes indicating grammatical number and gender and syntactic state, and in final suffixes, namely, pronominal suffixes and the definite article. Some changes precipitated ubiquitous outcomes such as the loss of marking of definiteness. The effects of others differed in the various Aramaic sub-groups such as loss of marking of grammatical number in masculine type nouns with pronominal suffixes in various Eastern Aramaic dialects, but not in Western Aramaic.
The invariable result as can be seen throughout the branches of Neo-Aramaic is nominal morphology which is overwhelmingly linear.
The present paper aims to examine this development in the context of more general changes in Aramaic nominal morphology. It examines the interrelations between noun forms in the older strata of Aramaic in which the Aramaic definite article still functioned, both morphologically and morphosyntactically, as well as later changes in noun forms concurrent with the loss of the definite article’s determining force. In the older strata, the two forms of the unbound noun, definite and indefinite, exhibit complex morphosyntactic relations with construct state forms. In the Aramaic dialects in which the definite force of the definite article was lost, changes are also documented in genitive constructions, entailing shifts in the inventory of Construct State forms. Based on this related change, as well as an analogous development in spoken Modern Hebrew, the paper claims that the definite article’s loss of its definite force was brought about by a simplification process in noun morphology.
The present paper aims to examine this development in the context of more general changes in Aramaic nominal morphology. It examines the interrelations between noun forms in the older strata of Aramaic in which the Aramaic definite article still functioned, both morphologically and morphosyntactically, as well as later changes in noun forms concurrent with the loss of the definite article’s determining force. In the older strata, the two forms of the unbound noun, definite and indefinite, exhibit complex morphosyntactic relations with construct state forms. In the Aramaic dialects in which the definite force of the definite article was lost, changes are also documented in genitive constructions, entailing shifts in the inventory of Construct State forms. Based on this related change, as well as an analogous development in spoken Modern Hebrew, the paper claims that the definite article’s loss of its definite force was brought about by a simplification process in noun morphology.
Talks by Ivri Bunis
Similar forms occur in the different stages of Rabbinic Hebrew, where reliable manuscripts and epigraphic sources attest the pronouns הלז, הלה, הללו, הלוז, הלזו, and הלוו. As recently shown by Bunis (2022), these continue a reconstructible paradigm in which a medial or distal marker *hallā- was prefixed to the proximal demonstratives m.sg. זה, f.sg. זו, and pl. אלו.
In this talk, we identify a potential Biblical Hebrew source construction for this *hallā-prefixed paradigm in the combination of the presentative הל(ו)א (cf. Sivan & Schniedewind 1993) with demonstrative זה (Gen 44:5; Ex 14:12; Jdg 9:38; 1 Sam 21:12, 29:3,5; Isa 58:6; Jon 4:2; Zech 3:2), זאת (2 Sam 11:3; Jer 2:17), and אלה (Hab 2:6). Most of these attestations can readily be interpreted as expressing medial deixis, like the הלז(ה) and הלזו pronouns. This supports the status of this construction as the source of both the Biblical Hebrew and the Rabbinic Hebrew prefixed pronominal paradigms. By identifying this diachronic relationship, we hope to shed new light on the use of Biblical Hebrew הל(ו)א (especially together with demonstrative pronouns), on the origin of the rare Biblical Hebrew medial demonstratives like הלז and related forms like Classical Arabic allaðī, and on the originally medial function of the similar demonstratives in Rabbinic Hebrew.
References:
Bunis, Ivri J. 2022. ‘Historical Morphosyntax of hallā- Demonstratives in Rabbinic Hebrew as Evidence for Spoken Hebrew in Amoraic Palestine’. Maarav 26.1–2, 161–195.
Garr, W. Randall. 2008. ‘The Medial Demonstratives הלזה, הלזו, and הלז’. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 32.2, 383–389.
Sivan, Daniel, & William Schniedewind. 1993. ‘Letting Your “Yes” Be “No” in Ancient Israel: A Study of the Asseverative לא and הֲלֹא’. Journal of Semitic Studies 38, 209–226.
In turn, the situation in the Late Western Aramaic found in Pentateuchal Targum fragments from the Cairo Genizah, where pronominal objects are only expressed periphrastically through /yāt-/ with all verb forms, is likely a literary phenomenon: Confusion about the expression of specific pronominal objects with specific verb forms in speech precipitated complete avoidance of expression of pronominal objects through verbal inflection.
Full publication available at: https://www.openbookpublishers.com/books/10.11647/obp.0463/chapters/10.11647/obp.0463.31
and the possibility that their ancestral language, Hebrew, had influenced their unique dialects of Aramaic. The present article aims to illuminate these understudied questions by analyzing the syntax of the lexeme אפשר ʾpšr, unique to Rabbinic Hebrew and the Jewish dialects of Qumran, Targumic, and Talmudic Aramaic from Palestine and Babylonia. This lexeme, and its shared syntax among those languages and dialects,
points to an early use of language to maintain ethnic and religious distinctness among Jews in antiquity.
features, developed in the Middle Ages or later, after the end of the talmudic period in the 7th century CE. Even earlier, however, Jews spoke a variety of languages, which could potentially have developed into Jewish languages. Such language included the Aramaic dialects spoken by Jews in the Land of Israel and elsewhere in the Near East during the Roman and Byzantine periods (respectively, 1st-4th centuries and 4th-7th centuries CE). In contrast with later Jewish languages, however, it has been a matter of debate to what extent the Aramaic of late antique Jews also acquired features, under the influence of Hebrew and Jewish life, which distinguished them from Aramaic dialects spoken by non-Jews. The
present article aims to demonstrate that Talmudic Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, i.e., the language of Talmud Yerushalmi and similar rabbinic literature from Byzantine Palestine was indeed a Jewish language. Focusing on the form כדיי kəday, the article shows how in the Aramaic dialect of the Jewish authors of those texts, the form כדיי kəday was borrowed from Rabbinic Hebrew, being preferred over the native Aramaic form כמסת kəmissat which had already existed, and which had a largely identical function. I interpret the adoption of Hebrew כדיי kəday as reflecting the prestige of Hebrew among Jewish speakers, and possibly a Jewish religious connotation that the Hebrew form had. The same Hebrew form was subsequently borrowed into several later Jewish languages as well.
subordinating particle ש־ is irregular. Alongside its usual spelling ש־, it is
sporadically written שה־, and both forms are attached to the following word. In all vocalized occurrences of שה־, the letter heh is silent, even though wordinternal heh not indicating the consonant /h/ is very unusual in Hebrew orthography. This has prompted a number of scholarly explanations for the orthography שה־, but as the present article shows, previous explanations must be ruled out because they contradict well-established Hebrew orthographic norms. The present article reexamines the orthography שה־ and offers a new explanation, which links it to other phenomena typical of Late and Postbiblical Hebrew. In order to explain the orthography שה־, the article argues that one must take into account linguistic phenomena that were much more common in spoken Hebrew than in the literary registers documented by the surviving vocalized texts and reading traditions. Unlike previous explanations, the present article proposes that the silent heh is a hypercorrection in a linguistic reality where guttural consonants weakened in spoken Hebrew and the consonant /h/ tended to be elided after subordinating ש־.
and mood (TAM) distinctions in two closely related languages:
Western Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic. It compares their shared
cognate verbal paradigms, shows the overlap and differences in
their grammatical functions and discusses the independent parallel
developments such as the innovation of new verbal constructions.
It will demonstrate that the Western Neo-Aramaic conservatism
and resilience to contact-induced change in its verbal system is
striking in light of its prolonged and close contact with Syrian
Arabic and the morphological similarities between the Western
Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic verbal paradigms—factors which
have been found to
Late- and Neo-Aramaic dialects witness dramatic changes in nominal morphology; a marked reduction in allomorphy can be seen in the noun base (trilateral root+morphological pattern), in inflectional morphemes indicating grammatical number and gender and syntactic state, and in final suffixes, namely, pronominal suffixes and the definite article. Some changes precipitated ubiquitous outcomes such as the loss of marking of definiteness. The effects of others differed in the various Aramaic sub-groups such as loss of marking of grammatical number in masculine type nouns with pronominal suffixes in various Eastern Aramaic dialects, but not in Western Aramaic.
The invariable result as can be seen throughout the branches of Neo-Aramaic is nominal morphology which is overwhelmingly linear.
The present paper aims to examine this development in the context of more general changes in Aramaic nominal morphology. It examines the interrelations between noun forms in the older strata of Aramaic in which the Aramaic definite article still functioned, both morphologically and morphosyntactically, as well as later changes in noun forms concurrent with the loss of the definite article’s determining force. In the older strata, the two forms of the unbound noun, definite and indefinite, exhibit complex morphosyntactic relations with construct state forms. In the Aramaic dialects in which the definite force of the definite article was lost, changes are also documented in genitive constructions, entailing shifts in the inventory of Construct State forms. Based on this related change, as well as an analogous development in spoken Modern Hebrew, the paper claims that the definite article’s loss of its definite force was brought about by a simplification process in noun morphology.
The present paper aims to examine this development in the context of more general changes in Aramaic nominal morphology. It examines the interrelations between noun forms in the older strata of Aramaic in which the Aramaic definite article still functioned, both morphologically and morphosyntactically, as well as later changes in noun forms concurrent with the loss of the definite article’s determining force. In the older strata, the two forms of the unbound noun, definite and indefinite, exhibit complex morphosyntactic relations with construct state forms. In the Aramaic dialects in which the definite force of the definite article was lost, changes are also documented in genitive constructions, entailing shifts in the inventory of Construct State forms. Based on this related change, as well as an analogous development in spoken Modern Hebrew, the paper claims that the definite article’s loss of its definite force was brought about by a simplification process in noun morphology.
Similar forms occur in the different stages of Rabbinic Hebrew, where reliable manuscripts and epigraphic sources attest the pronouns הלז, הלה, הללו, הלוז, הלזו, and הלוו. As recently shown by Bunis (2022), these continue a reconstructible paradigm in which a medial or distal marker *hallā- was prefixed to the proximal demonstratives m.sg. זה, f.sg. זו, and pl. אלו.
In this talk, we identify a potential Biblical Hebrew source construction for this *hallā-prefixed paradigm in the combination of the presentative הל(ו)א (cf. Sivan & Schniedewind 1993) with demonstrative זה (Gen 44:5; Ex 14:12; Jdg 9:38; 1 Sam 21:12, 29:3,5; Isa 58:6; Jon 4:2; Zech 3:2), זאת (2 Sam 11:3; Jer 2:17), and אלה (Hab 2:6). Most of these attestations can readily be interpreted as expressing medial deixis, like the הלז(ה) and הלזו pronouns. This supports the status of this construction as the source of both the Biblical Hebrew and the Rabbinic Hebrew prefixed pronominal paradigms. By identifying this diachronic relationship, we hope to shed new light on the use of Biblical Hebrew הל(ו)א (especially together with demonstrative pronouns), on the origin of the rare Biblical Hebrew medial demonstratives like הלז and related forms like Classical Arabic allaðī, and on the originally medial function of the similar demonstratives in Rabbinic Hebrew.
References:
Bunis, Ivri J. 2022. ‘Historical Morphosyntax of hallā- Demonstratives in Rabbinic Hebrew as Evidence for Spoken Hebrew in Amoraic Palestine’. Maarav 26.1–2, 161–195.
Garr, W. Randall. 2008. ‘The Medial Demonstratives הלזה, הלזו, and הלז’. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 32.2, 383–389.
Sivan, Daniel, & William Schniedewind. 1993. ‘Letting Your “Yes” Be “No” in Ancient Israel: A Study of the Asseverative לא and הֲלֹא’. Journal of Semitic Studies 38, 209–226.