Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: Perspective on Phoenician and Hebrew

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Henry Churchyard" <churchh AT usa.net>
  • To: b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re: Perspective on Phoenician and Hebrew
  • Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 13:24:16 -0600 (CST)


> Subject: Perspective on Phoenician and Hebrew
> From: Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>
> Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 00:27:51 +0100

> I was browsing a book by Garbini a few days ago ("I fenici: storia e
> religione" [The Phoenicians: history and religion], Napoli, 1980)
> and was taken by his comments about the Hebrew language. [...] Any
> thoughts on the distinction Garbini is making between what he sees
> as these conservative and innovative languages?

The idea of a language which is conservative _in all respects_ is the
same naive folk myth that would have us believe that somewhere in the
Appalachians they still speak "Elizabethan English". That said,
certain languages can be conservative in certain specific respects
(for example, Classical Arabic is very conservative phonologically in
preserving 28 of the 29 proto-Semitic consonants as distinct phonemes,
and in showing rather little phonological erosion in word-final
syllables); while some languages may be said to have undergone a
somewhat generalized accelerated rate of change, due to
sociolinguistic factors (with the extreme case being pidgins and
creoles). From what I know of the matter, Biblical Hebrew's
historical rate of change with respect to earlier reconstructed
proto-languages doesn't particularly strike me as being notably fast
or slow with respect to somewhat closely related languages.

P.S. I hope Garbini's other work is more solidly based than his
somewhat conceptually confused and factually incorrect earlier
hypotheses on Hebrew-Aramaic _s'in_.

> Subject: Re: SV: Gilgamesh (Jonathan)
> From: Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>
> Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 03:19:20 +0100

> [Chaldaios vs. Kasdim]. The linguistics was
> interesting, though the sound change doesn't seem a direct one, ie when
> phonemes change it is almost invariably only one feature modified at a time
> (how many features from /s/ to /l/?).

This word very probably contains the aforesaid Hebrew-Aramaic _s'in_,
which was originally a fricative-lateral sound (i.e. was lateral like
an /l/, but also fricative like a sibilant). Here Hebrew seems to
have preserved a sound closer to the original pronunciation (or at
least it did before the delateralization of _s'in_ in the late
centuries B.C.), while "Chaldaios" reflects an Aramaic form which has
been Akkadianized in phonology. See Steiner's _Fricative-Lateral_
book pp. 137-148 for discussion of the kasd-/kald- correspondence, and
the Akkadian -sh- -> -l- sound shift before t and d; and see my paper
in _Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics V_ for my reconstruction of the
Hebrew-Aramaic _s'in_ (along with copious further references...).

--
Henry Churchyard churchh AT usa.net http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page