Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Why Semitic languages had no written vowels?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
  • To: Vadim Cherny <VadimCherny AT mail.ru>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Why Semitic languages had no written vowels?
  • Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 00:09:40 +0100

On 27/04/2005 15:28, Vadim Cherny wrote:

...

мука as flour is a new word. The original root is min - mon - mok - muk. I'm
not an expert in Russian linguistics, but the root is the same "min" as in
разминать (make softer). мука as torment is from mit - mot root, as in
мутить.


Thank you. But the age and derivation of these words is irrelevant. What is relevant is that they are both in regular use in modern Russian, and are pronounced differently but spelled the same. There are of course many such examples in English, e.g. the two pronunciations of "lead" and "read".

The example of все (all) is the opposite of what we encounter in Hebrew.
Russian example is a common simplification, encountered cross-linguistically
(I need not point to English simplification of French loans).


Well, I am not sure of the history, whether the two dots in всё (vsyo) are a later addition to an original form все. But if they are, this parallels Hebrew and Arabic usage, in which vowel distinctions can be made with vowel points, but are commonly omitted.

...


There is a huge difference between unmarked stress and vowels.
Unmarked stress differentiation appeared in highly developed language with
fluent speakers, while unmarked vowels should be suitable for humans just
beginning to talk.


Are you talking about children? Or are you claiming that the Hebrews and other Semites of the biblical period had only just evolved to a level of intelligence at which they were able to talk? Is this an anti-Semitic comment, i.e. suggesting that Semites are somehow sub-human, or more a historical one, that no humans were able to speak properly 3000 years ago? Anyway, in either case it is demonstrably false. I only have to turn on my TV at the moment to hear a Semite, one of our main election candidates, speaking perfectly clear English complete with vowels, and speaking highly intelligently - although I don't like his policies, which would ironically have stopped his parents coming to our country at all, and very likely to them ending up in the gas chambers. But I digress. And the Egyptians and Sumerians of up to 5000 years ago were clearly intelligent enough to write their languages, fully as complex as modern languages and in the case of Sumerian certainly having vowels - and the same is true of the West Semites of the Amarna period.

Unmarked stress is positively identified by syntactical consideration in
almost all cases. ...


But not in all cases, neither in Russian (мука), nor in English, nor in a few cases in Hebrew.


... Unmarked stress produce ambiguity in perhaps 1% of the cases. Unmarked
vowel - I guess, at least in 50%. That's a lot of difference. ...


Fair enough.

... People
recognize that vowels are necessary for modern writing: to my knowledge, all
other languages mark vowels.


Some people recognise this, but not those who use the various scripts I mentioned before. I accept that these scripts were originally for Semitic languages, but the fact that they continue in use for non-Semitic languages shows that these speakers do not recognise that vowels must be written.

You might like to look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abjad .

...

Abkhaz is a developed language.


What do you mean by this?


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



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.3 - Release Date: 25/04/2005





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page