[b-hebrew] comparative historical linguistics was Re: Nun-Tav-Vet root

Peter Kirk peter at qaya.org
Wed Nov 29 05:21:44 EST 2006


On 29/11/2006 03:48, Yitzhak Sapir wrote:
> ...
>
> This is not what I asked.  First of all, a "Rosetta stone" usually isn't
> one language, two scripts -- it's two languages or more and probably
> just as many scripts. ...

Actually the original Rosetta stone has three scripts and two languages: 
Greek and two different scripts for Egyptian. But of course we don't 
have any kind of Rosetta stone for pre-monarchic Hebrew, so the point is 
moot. The best we have is the Amarna correspondence and the Ugaritic 
parallels which Yitzhak mentiones. We do of course have some kind of 
inter-script Rosetta stone for Ugaritic itself in that we have the same 
language, and I think sometimes the same texts, in both alphabetic and 
syllabic cuneiform. Similarly but from a much later period, we have some 
Hebrew texts preserved in palaeo-Hebrew among the DSS as well as in 
square Hebrew, so we can use these as direct confirmation of the 
correspondence between these scripts - which had already been 
established well before the discovery of the DSS.

-- 
Peter Kirk
E-mail:  peter at qaya.org
Blog:    http://speakertruth.blogspot.com/
Website: http://www.qaya.org/




More information about the b-hebrew mailing list