[b-hebrew] language level
Paul Zellmer
pzellmer at sc.rr.com
Sun Jan 30 00:13:45 EST 2011
An addendum:
You are still confusing the development of the alphabet with the development of the language. You assume that the language did not exist in spoken form *before* it was encoded in writing. Note that I said that two different *phonological* processes were taken place in the words you questioned. Phonological refers to sounds, not writing.
The spoken form would have had roots with three base phonemes. That those phonemes later were represented by individual alphabetic characters was an accident of the region in which the language existed. Had Hebrew been the language further east, it might have been encoded in the pictographs of Chinese. But it still would have been the same language, because it is the vocalization that makes a language, not the way the language is represented on paper.
Paul Zellmer
-----Original Message-----
From: b-hebrew-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:b-hebrew-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Paul Zellmer
Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 11:58 PM
To: 'fred burlingame'
Cc: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] language level
That is *a* theory that exists. Whether it “prevails” is highly questionable. I’m not even sure that Isaac would raise its general popularity to that level.
Paul Zellmer
From: fred burlingame [mailto:tensorpath at gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 5:14 PM
To: Paul Zellmer
Cc: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] language level
Hello Paul:
Thanks for your informative comments.
I understand the following theory prevails at this time in academia, though with the usual and customary dissent. The alphabet and its language(s), rather than experiencing an event of creation, arose by gradual evolution from the hieroglyph and its language(s) over centuries 2000-1000 b.c.
http://www.bib-arch.org/scholars-study/alphabet.asp
http://www.bib-arch.org/bar/article.asp?PubID=BSBA <http://www.bib-arch.org/bar/article.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=36&Issue=02&ArticleID=6> &Volume=36&Issue=02&ArticleID=6
Hence:
a. the one to one correspondence between hieroglyph and word;
b. gradually moved to single alphabet letter one to one correspondence with a word;
c. and thence, to two alphabet letters correspondence to a single word;
d. and thence, to three alphabet letters correspondence to a single word.
The two letter parent root in this instance חל (chet, lamed) birthed 2, three letter child roots,
i. the one by adding י (yod) or ו (waw) between the two consonants;
ii. the other by repeating ל (lamed).
And so, the question persists; what is the tie that binds the two child roots to the parent? What meaning of the parent is common to the two children?
regards,
fred burlingame
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Paul Zellmer <pzellmer at sc.rr.com> wrote:
Fred,
While the parts of the two roots remaining in the forms found in the verse are identical, "two letter consonantal root(s)" are basically non-existent in Hebrew. And there are several ways in which trilateral roots reduce to biliteral representations.
The traditional roots for these specific occurrences, the ones resulting in our current translations, are חלל (the same root as the nominal form תחלה - beginning, first) and חיל (from חול). If, as I personally believe based on the context, these identifications are correct, then the answers to your musings would be: 1) the author did not grasp at all to choose these words. They were words normally used to express the thoughts expressed in the verse. That their surface representations were similar is merely accidental. 2) the two remaining root letters come neither from there being a common root or an illusion. They result from two different phonological processes in the language. 3) The two words have different meanings, and their roots have different meanings.
If you wish to posit that the two come from a single root, you are welcome to do so. However, the burden then lies on your shoulders to defend what that root is (remember--triliteral) and what it means. To present options of alternate roots is an acceptable scholarly exercise, but it is normal to demonstrate how the changing the roots also change the meaning of the verse.
Paul Zellmer
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
More information about the b-hebrew
mailing list