Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Jason Hare" <jason AT hareplay.com>]

Trevor:
> > > > Perhaps pronouncing the double consonant
> > > > without a vowel following was a pain, and for euphonic reasons it
> > > > was dropped (even as stated earlier in this thread). That makes
> > > > perfect sense to me.
> > >
> > > And pronouncing alef at the end of a syllable apparently became a
> > > pain. The difference is that the loss of alef resulted in a vowel
> > > shift to fit an open syllable. What's the difference?
> >
> > Usage. ;-)
>
> If that's as far as you want to take it, there's no point in having this
> discussion. But if we think language change actually makes sense in some
> twisted way, there's reason to look for an explanation. I don't think
> it's too much of a stretch to suggest that there's a weakened
> lengthening of the consonant in the situations we've been discussing.

I think that usage is really what it's about. Do you think there was
anything more than this behind the shift from double tau to double sigma in
Hellenistic Greek? Do you think there was anything more to the loss of the
digama and consonantal iota (which still had ramifications) in the same
language? Is it not possible that usage was what even makes us today shift
from longer to shorter forms? I think that colloquialisms pulled great
weight in ancient language and do even today. The lost doubled consonants
must have been just how they felt most comfortable with speaking (and the
writing followed it naturally without the dagesh). It was a simplistic
answer, but I don't think it was *that* far off.

Regards,
Jason