Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Re: Prov. 30:19

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
  • To: Karl Randolph <kwrandolph AT email.com>
  • Cc: Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Re: Prov. 30:19
  • Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 03:08:39 -0700

On 07/10/2003 23:00, Karl Randolph wrote:

Dear Peter:

How do you know that it is not Arabic from over a thousand years later that
split one root into two? ...

Because such things don't happen, within the rather well understood processes of how languages change over time.

... Even with post-Biblical Hebrew, we see that one letter, sin, was split
into two: sin and shin, ...

No, as Trevor has explained. Sin and shin were always pronounced differently, but were written with one letter because there was no separate letter available for sin.

... other letters had taken on two pronunciations, and this happened before
the earliest example of Arabic. ...

Is it not speulation to suggest at what dates these changes were made? There is actually little definite datable evidence for these changes from before the Masoretic text, which postdates the Qur'an. Further evidence for the dating of phonetic change in Hebrew is of the kind you would reject as speculative.

... So how is it not speculation to claim that Arabic with its split should
take precedence over Biblical Hebrew which has no evidence of such a split?
Remember, Biblical Hebrew gives indications that it was phonetically written,
...

Where? Chapter and verse please, or some other evidence which is not speculative.

... so the lack of letters indicates that these were sounds the language
lacked.

To me it appears pure speculation to claim that the forms of one language
should take precedence over the forms of a cognate language from over a
thousand years earlier, ...

I presume you are referring to the Hebrew forms here. But what Hebrew forms? The ones which exist do not support your theories rather than mine, instead they are neutral between them. My theories have the advantage of some evidence, although I admit it is somewhat remote. But there is no evidence at all for your theories. Hebrew evidence takes priority over late Arabic evidence, I agree, but late Arabic evidence has priority over no evidence at all.

... especially when there is no other evidence for it, nor any allowance made
for how languages change over time.

Karl, it is clear that you have very little idea of how languages change over time. Please study some comparative linguistics, history of Semitic languages etc, and weigh carefully the evidence used for their reconstructions, before presuming to know these things better than me, a trained linguist, and than the experts in this field whose theories I have summarised.

--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page