wbparsons at alum.mit.edu
Mon Jul 26 17:08:00 EDT 2010
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 07:41:47 +0200, "Arnaud Fournet" <fournet.arnaud at wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Will Parsons" <wbparsons at alum.mit.edu>
> To: <fournet.arnaud at wanadoo.fr>
> Cc: <jc.bhebrew at googlemail.com>; <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2010 5:38 PM
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] T-SADE
> > On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 05:30:05 +0200, "Arnaud Fournet" <fournet.arnaud at wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> Needless to say that I consider the approach of Saenz-Badillos (A History of
> the Hebrew Language) to be complete nonsense and not far from
> antiscientific. There is an overwhelming body of data that shows that
> approach to be completely wrong.
I'm not familiar with Saenz-Badillos; what's his(?) approach?
> > First of all, we *don't* have TS in the Codex Vaticanus in the text at all.
> > There are numerous occurrences of Hebrew name with sadhe transcribed with
> > simple sigma in the Vaticanus and other manuscripts of the LXX. The one
> > claimed use of tau+sigma is in a heading to the acrostical portion of
> > Lamentations, and that seems uncertain.
> I do not see why it is uncertain.
> That occurence is certain!? even if it may be isolated.
*You* may think it is certain, but *I* don't have access to a facsimile of
Codex Vaticanus so that I can judge for myself, and the sigla of the edition
of the LXX in my possession contradict that reading. To me, that makes it
Anyway, I think we both have reached the point where we're not bringing
anything new into the argument, so I don't intend to carry on in this thread.
Before closing, I would like to point out one last time that even if the
reading you like can be verified, it *still* doesn't follow that it would
necessarily reflect a Hebrew pronuncation of [tsade]. If you think that it
would, ask yourself if you are prepared to argue that Hebrew shin was
pronounced [khs] on the basis of the Greek rendering of the name as khsen.
More information about the b-hebrew