[b-hebrew] Hebrew with Aramaic, Phoenician etc in scholarly publications
kwrandolph at email.com
Wed Jul 16 15:37:01 EDT 2003
As one who does not know cuneiform nor Akkadian, I most certainly would like to see the original form as well as the transliteration now that it is within unicodes capability. At the very least it would force me to sit down and learn these writings, whereas now I can be lazy and hope the transliterations are accurate.
I also would like to see Tenakh in paleo-Hebrew, where the sin and shin are the same letter, where none of the sofit letters are found and where the spaces between words were written with dots. To the lexicographer, it may suggest connections where presently there are divisions based on modern (since Second Temple) Hebrew. For example, P$( (peh sin eyen) has the meaning of to step, while P$( (peh shin eyen) has the meaning of to rebel, step out of line. There are other words where I have found similar connections. To have them split apart as in modern Hebrew, the computer, which is too dumb to cross code differences, cannot help us see the possible connections. (Incidently, the shibboleth incident in Judges was a difference between a sin/shin and samekh.)
(I believe that the samekh originally had the ks sound. Evidences for it are its place in the alphabet and form were the same as the letter carrying the ks sound in those other languages that adopted the alphabet, and in Ezra in his Hebrew sections and Nehemiah used it to transliterate where other languages (in particular Greek) used their letter x. Interestingly, in Aramaic, Ezra used sin/shin.)
Karl W. Randolph.
----- Original Message -----
From: Trevor Peterson <06PETERSON at cua.edu>
> >===== Original Message From Peter Kirk <peter.r.kirk at ntlworld.com> =====
> >It can be very useful to our understanding of Hebrew to see
> >its relation with cognate languages, where loan words come from etc.
> Yes, it can. I'm not disagreeing with that. How are you going to see, though,
> if you can't read the relevant texts?
> >recent discussion on this list of the background of SARIS would have
> >been impossible, for me and for most of us on the list, if the related
> >Akkadian forms had been given in KB/HALOT etc in cuneiform - even if
> >this list could handle cuneiform.
> I don't see where having the evidence in
> transliteration makes a difference.
> Trevor Peterson
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
CareerBuilder.com has over 400,000 jobs. Be smarter about your job search
More information about the b-hebrew