Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Piel Participles of ayin-waw-yod

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Arnaud Fournet" <fournet.arnaud AT wanadoo.fr>
  • To: "Will Parsons" <wbparsons AT alum.mit.edu>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org, randallbuth AT gmail.com
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Piel Participles of ayin-waw-yod
  • Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 07:28:39 +0100


From: "Will Parsons" <wbparsons AT alum.mit.edu>



On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 08:14:32 +0100, "Arnaud Fournet" <fournet.arnaud AT wanadoo.fr> wrote:
(...)


> In the case of Hebrew, it's harder to judge than Greek
> both because of the much more limited evidence and the fact that the > using a
> defective method of indicating vowels could conceal major differences > in
> pronunciation.

***
If we have no indication of differences, then the best hypothesis is to
avoid positing ghost entities.
A.
***

What are these ghost entities? *I* haven't claimed anything about how
uniform Hebrew was in Biblical times. But if you're suggesting something
along the lines of: "We don't have clear evidence of major dialectal
differences in Biblical times, therefore none existed", well, that's a
fallaceous argument.
***
ok
so it's a kind of polemics.
You wrote: "using a defective method of indicating vowels could conceal major differences in pronunciation."
This is a claim, right?
You then wrote: "*I* haven't claimed anything about how uniform Hebrew was in Biblical times."
=> contradiction?
A.
***


(...)
>>
>> So I suppose it must have been an affricate in the original >> proto-Semitic
>> (and before).
>> A.
>> ***
>
> We've covered this before in another thread. Rendering X in language A > by Y
> in language B doesn't prove that X is pronounced Y in A if B doesn't > have
> an equivalent to X. So, no "doubtless an affricate", &c. Making > dogmatic
> statements about details of Akkadian phonology (let alone > Proto-Semitic!) is
> simply not justified.
> William Parsons

***
I consider this point of view to be definitely dogmatic and possibly even
sterile.

Arnaud Fournet

*You* are the one making dogmatic statements. I am merely pointing out that
your arguments claiming "proof" are fallaceous.
William Parsons


***
well, again:
you wrote: "Rendering X in language A by Y in language B doesn't prove [sic] that X is pronounced Y in A if B doesn't have an equivalent to X."
Is this not a dogmatic statement about what should or should not be?

The observation that Cuneiform s and z are in fact affricates is standard knowledge in the study of Anatolian IE languages and Hurro-Urartian.
For example:
A Grammar of the Hittite Language
Part 1
Reference Grammar
by
Harry A. Hoffner, Jr.
The University of Chicago
and
H. Craig Melchert
The University of California, Los Angeles

Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbraun 2008


P37:

Affricates
1.90. The cuneiform signs conventionally transcribed as containing a z represent a sound (or sounds) with three distinct sources in Hittite. (1) Some cases reflect a sequence /t+s/: the sg. nom. of the common gender t-stem aniyatt- /aniyat-s/ is spelled a-ni-ya-az vs. sg. gen. a-ni-ya-at-ta-aš.67 (2) In other cases it represents the affricate /ts/ resulting from the dissimilation of a dental stop before another dental stop (see §1.125, p. 44): imp. sg. 3 /e:tstu/ ‘let him eat’ is spelled e-ez(-za)-du. (3) In still others it represents the sound resulting from prehistoric assibilation of *ty and *ti: suffix -zziya- < *-tyo- in ḫa-an-te-ez-zi-ya- ‘front, first’ (see §2.53, p. 61) and pres. sg. 3 ending -zzi < *-ti in e-ep-zi ‘takes’ etc. ****The first two sources suggest that z stands for a voiceless dental affricate /ts/, and we follow most Hittitologists in adopting this value.***

Note 67
That z is representing an affricate /ts/ here is confirmed by the fact that in those cases in clitic sequences
when /-t+s-/ becomes /-ss-/ and the dental stop is lost, the z-containing signs are not used
***

I must say that I fully agree with this approach, which is confirmed by a mountain of convergent and independent data and features coming from a large number of languages.

I don't know what is at stake in your rejection of the obvious,
but in all cases I'm certainly not dogmatic and certainly not making fallacious claims.

Arnaud Fournet








Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page