Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] linguistics, was Re: Prov. 30:19

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>
  • To: "Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] linguistics, was Re: Prov. 30:19
  • Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 01:34:41 -0500

Dear Peter:

My responses are mingled with yours.

Karl W. Randolph.

----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>

On 09/10/2003 11:17, Karl Randolph wrote:

>
>As I read your response, you claim that scholarly reconstruction equals
evidence. What if the scholarly reconstruction is wrong? How would we know? What
is their evidence?
>
>As for the evidence of the German pronunciation change, it is from written documents and place names. For example, Stratteburg became Straßburg over a period of time (before it got its modern, French spelling). That’s just one of many examples. Because German spelling remained fluid until relatively modern times, pronunciation changes such as these could be mapped, so what do you mean “there is equally "no evidence"”? > >
And I could quote similar evidence for different spellings of place names in and around the land of Israel, and other written documents going back hundreds of years before biblical Hebrew, including Ugaritic, Egyptian, Akkadian, Eblaite etc, as well as early inscriptional Hebrew, Phoenician, Moabite (e.g. the text I just sent you), Aramaic etc etc, quite apart from later evidence such as Greek, Arabic and Ethiopic. This adds up to a huge body of evidence from which scholars have reconstructed rules of phonetic change in just the same way that they have reconstructed the German rule which you quote. All this adds up to a strong body of evidence that Hebrew sin was pronounced as a lateral fricative, like a voiceless l, as still in the modern Semitic language Jibbali.

You are comparing apples with oranges. With the German, we can compare German
with German, measured over a limited time period. With the Hebrew, you are
comparing Hebrew with different languages, even different language families
in transcriptions, over vast spans of time during which pronunciation may
have changed or exchanged because of a change of language, under widely
differing linguistic influences, and so forth. Under such circumstances, your
claims are in a different realm than mapping a German change in pronunciation.

As for the pronunciation of sin, I see no reason to pronounce it other than
as a sibilant. The Jibbali pronunciation sounds dialectal, in the same manner
that the Hoi San family of dialects have changed most Cantonese sibilants to
voiceless lateral fricatives.

>For me, the strongest evidence for Biblical Hebrew is precisely the
surviving, unpointed, written documents. I think ...
>
Think what you like, but the evidence does not support your speculation.

What evidence do you have? How do you prove that the specific followed the
pattern of the general and was not an exception?

It appears that your methodology is backwards: it should go from the specific
to the general, but you seem to be applying the general to the specific.

>
>When an alphabet is adopted from one language to another, the examples I
have seen indicate that it is rare that the alphabet is adopted unchanged. ...
>
Well, I have seen evidence of lots of different Semitic languages written with precisely the same set of 22 letters. So that is plenty of counter-examples to your alleged rule, which may apply to modern Western scripts but not to ancient Near Eastern ones. It seems highly improbable that all ancient Semitic languages had precisely the same set of consonant phonemes, indeed it is easily proven that they did not.

How many adopted the 22 letter Hebrew alphabet? Ugaritic didn’t. Eblaite
didn’t (though that’s unfair, as Eblaite predated the earliest surviving
examples of Hebrew alphabet), Ethiopic didn’t, Arabic didn’t. Moabite was so
close to Hebrew it could almost be called a dialect thereof. Was not the same
true of Edomite? The Greeks and Romans both took the alphabet and changed it.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it looks as if the 22 letter alphabet was
adopted by only a relatively small number of closely related Semitic
languages.

Then there are some who claim that Hebrew was the pre-Tower of Babel
language, and examples of very ancient Hebrew writing, in the 22 letter
alphabet, are found world wide. You wouldn’t happen to be one of those, are
you?

>...
>Looking back at the history of Scandinavian languages, it seems we can chart
additions of phonemes over the last 1200 years. When my ancestors burst out of
the cold north to terrorize England, Ireland and France, they were literate,
using a 16 letter phonetic ...
>
What is your evidence that it was phonetic? It seems highly unlikely. I don't think any known modern language has as few as 16 phonemes.

This was not a modern language 1200 years ago. Furthermore, we can find
variences in spelling indicative of dialectal differences from region to
region.

>... alphabet called “Futhork”, commonly called runes. These 16 letters
represented the 16 phonemes in use at that time, though it is possible that it
did not represent all the phones the people spoke. Over time, dots and other
marks were added to various glyphs to indicate phones, later phonemes, that were
not represented by the 16 glyphs. Some of the original phonemes split apart,
such as the ‘k’ to ‘g’ and ‘k’, the ‘a’ to ‘a’ and ‘æ’, and so forth. ...
>
I don't have the evidence to prove it, but I am almost sure that the reconstruction of Indo-European phonology, part of which you quoted to me, will indicate that these dots and other marks were added to indicate distinctions which were already in the language but had been underspecified in the written language. Just like the Hebrew sin and shin dots.

I wrote phonemes, not phones. I wouldn’t be surprised if they had different
sounds, phones, not indicated by their limited alphabet, but they were not
phonemically significant until later. When it became important to
differentiate between phonemes, then dots were added to the glyphs.
Reconstructions are guesses, educated guesses to be sure, of how scholars
believe things might have been, but they may not have been too.
Reconstructions are not evidence. To restate what I said above, how do you
know when a specific example is not an exception to a theorized
reconstruction?

>... And today, I wonder if the addition of ‘j’ after ‘g’, ‘k’, ‘s’ and ‘t’
in Norwegian represents a modern bifurcation of previous phonemes.
> >
You can wonder, or you can look at the evidence. I don't know much Norwegian, but I understand that after words like skirt and skip (also skiff), which I mentioned before, were borrowed from Norwegian into English, the Norwegian pronunciation changed so that Norwegian skip is now pronounced like English (from west Germanic) ship. Before some vowels a j sound is added to indicate this pronunciation. Unless you can provide evidence to the contrary, I will expect that this is a regular case of phonetic change conditioned by the environment.

This is not an example of ‘k’ before ‘i’ or ‘y’ which I deliberately left out
because one could argue that it is a regular case of phonetic change
conditioned by the environment, rather this is a case where four letters
sometimes change their pronunciations, sometimes not, and a ‘j’ is added to
indicate that change when it occures. Furthermore, a historical look at the
words indicates that this is a definite change in the pronunciation.

I shouldn’t have said “I wonder…”

>Therefore, if Biblical Hebrew was phonetically written, which I believe the
evidence indicates, ...
>
What evidence? There is none, only an a priori assumption which can be demonstrated to be improbable both from the general history of the alphabet and from a look at Hebrew phonology.

I’ve noticed variences in spelling, most often in the sometimes inclusion,
sometimes omission of medial waws and yods. That is one indicator that the
language was phonetically written.

>... the 22 letters represent the consonental phonemes they had. There was
nothing to prevent the ancient Hebrews from adding letters if the alphabet did
not cover all their consonental phonemes. That they did not do so indicates that
they did not need to.
> >
No, it does not. For a simple counter-example, look at English and many other western languages which have not added any vowel letters to the inherited Latin alphabet to cover all their vowel phonemes etc.

If you are talking about adding new letters, no that hasn’t happened since
the invention of the printing press. We have been too browbeaten by ASCII and
earlier by the printing press (which stole our thorn from English) which have
hindered the acceptance of new glyphs. But human inventiveness being what it
is, we have gotten around this limit by having combinations of letters stand
in for single glyph phonemes so most can become recognizable.

But ancient Hebrew was not so limited. While Biblical Hebrew was phonetically
spelled, it would have been easy to add new glyphs, and they didn’t until
after the spelling became largely frozen and people no longer spoke it in
their daily lives. Then they added the dots.

--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/
--
__________________________________________________________
Sign-up for your own personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

CareerBuilder.com has over 400,000 jobs. Be smarter about your job search
http://corp.mail.com/careers





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page