Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Are peh, taw and kaf aspirated in Biblical Hebrew?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Are peh, taw and kaf aspirated in Biblical Hebrew?
  • Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 21:57:42 -0500

Dear Rasmus Underbjerg Pinnerup:

Unnskyld at vi ikke kan svare på dansk.

I don’t think that your question is without merit, in fact, do we have an
accurate indication as to how Biblical Hebrew was pronounced pre-exile? I
suspect we don’t.

My first clue was the realization that sin and shin were treated as the same
letter pre-exile. Then to see some words sometimes spelled with a sin,
sometimes with a shin and that “sham” (there, that place) is from the same
root as “sim” (to place) pretty much convinces me that pre-exilic Hebrew
treated them as one letter in pronunciation as well as writing.

The second clue for me was the letter samech, written like the Greek letter
xi in pre-exilic writing and in the same place in the alphabet, I believe it
had the ‘x’ sound. However, that the second x in Artaxerxes was sometimes
written with a samech and sometimes with a sin/shin in Ezra indicates that
it may have been at that time that samech was changing its pronunciation from
x to s (the first x is written with a combination of heth - sin/shin).

(As for the shibboleth in Judges, that was a difference between samech and
sin/shin.)

In reading the New Testament in the Majority Text, in the transliterations of
names there are indications that there was then a shift taking place, not as
far advanced in Galilee as in Judea (the source of Peter’s Galilean accent?),
indications not preserved in Nestlé / Aland text. In particular, the
indications are that post-exilic Hebrew saw the addition of the fricative to
the begadkephath letters.

Now my question to the rest of the members: do I read my clues correctly? Are
there other sources that either back up or counteract my interpretation? Are
there any pre-exilic transliterations? I interpret that the shift in
pronunciation over several generations had pretty much reached its conclusion
in Judea by the time the New Testament was written and was close to that in
Galilee. Am I all wet?

I prefer to read Tenakh “bli piqudim” without points and that further leads
me to suspect that those letters had only one pronunciation pre-exile.

So what do youall think?

Karl W. Randolph.

> Dear B-Hebrew-members,
>
> I apologize in advance if my question is trivial,…
>
> The grammars mention, of course, the twofold pronunciation of the
> begadkefath-letters, but as to the plosive pronunciation of peh, taw and
> kaf, they only mention that they are unvoiced plosives - they do not
> mention whether they are aspirated or not.
--
_______________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page