Biblical Hebrew Forum

[HarryJ_Harm AT kastanet.org]

Jack Kilmon wrote:

<SNIP>
The Galilee was very Hellenistic, hence how much
influence did Greek have on the vocalization of
Galilean Aramaic by the Semitic populace?  Did the
Semitic speaking Galileans adopt the gentler and
easier vocal gymnastics of Greek?  Does this explain
the softer beyts and dropped pharyngeals?

It seems logical to me that a native language with
more complex gymnastics would "degrade" under a
heavy influence from a non-native language
introduced into the region.  A more drastic
example might be Egyptian to Coptic...but is this
pattern considered when attempting to phoneticize
Galilean Aramaic?

=========================================================================

Dear B-Hebrew Listers,

Greetings from Mississippi.

I can't speak for Galilean Aramaic but I can for Choctaw, a Native 
American language spoken in the US in Oklahoma and Mississippi.  The 
Oklahoma Choctaw speakers have dropped the lateral fricative which 
English doesn't have and replaced it with the English 'th" sound.  I 
have also seen the same process happening with the grammar here in 
Mississippi.  Choctaw speakers are losing the aspects of their language 
which English doesn't have, e.g., distant past tense, dual forms and 
switch reference system.  What is interesting is they are not adding 
English constructions which they don't have, e.g., a broad pronoun 
system which marks gender.

I wonder if something similar was happening in Galilean Aramaic.  I 
would expect similar changes if Greek were the majority language and 
Aramaic the minority.

Sincerely,

Harry J. Harm  :{)