Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Vadim Cherny" <VadimCherny AT mail.ru>]

> > I don't exclude that some vowelless script predates
> > cuneiform. I know this is an unorthodox view. But we have
> > too little epigraphic material to be certain otherwise.
>
> True, but we do have epigraphic West Semitic, and its
> derivation from Egyptian is fairly well established.

I thought that the relationship is established, but derivation? We are very
uncertain even about the spelling of Egyptian texts. I was under impression
that West Semitic and Egyptian are branches, not consequtive stages. In
fact, there is much controversy even on relation of East and West Semitic.
So it's all speculation.
Epigraphic West Semitic of possibly pre-cuneiform origin (at least,
pre-syllabic cuneiform) is, to my knowledge, scarce.
It seems to me that West Semitic is much closer to cuneiform (or, perhaps,
vice versa) than to hieroglyphs. Cuneiform looks like cursive West Semitic.
This is subjective, of course.

> If our comparatively significant body of evidence for Egyptian and
> cuneiform script development makes it nearly impossible to
> say which came first, then it seems like a stretch to
> suppose that West Semitic script predates either one.

We have A (Egyptian), B (cuneiform), and C (West Semitic). We know little of
A-B relation. What does this imply about B-C relation?

> But even if it did originate before, why wouldn't they have
> chosen a different writing system as the language changed?

*** In my opinion, or rather a guess, word hieroglyphs and cuneiform are the
earliest signs. Then appeared West Semitic script for still single-vowel
language. Then vowels diversified. Then appeared abujad, and syllabic
meanings of hieroglyphs and cuneiform. Then matres lectionis. Then vowel
marks and diacritics. ***

> If Ugaritic was being written side-by-side with logosyllabic
> Akkadian, and as you say at this point the vowels were
> differentiated, why would they not have been inspired to
> write vowels?

Why English speakers weren't inspired to add a symbol for ch, as in Chicago,
and another - for ch, as in chaf?

> It seems to me that your theory requires an
> explanation of this point. If a vowelless writing system can
> only be explained by an absence of vowel differentiation,
> then significant phonemic differentiation of vowels would
> have created enormous pressure to adapt the writing system.

It did. Masoretic vowel marks, Arabic diacritics.

> And the contact with cuneiform would have compounded this
> pressure, because it was clearly evident that a writing
> system could accommodate vowels.

Or, rather, that it is extremely inconvenient at add vowels to a writing
system.

> Indeed, Ugaritic script does seem to have been influenced by cuneiform in
its
> wedge-formation.

Why are you sure about the direction?

> Vowel writing did eventually develop in the form of matres
> lectionis, but in Phoenician, for instance, it never seems
> to have caught on.

Only because Phoenician was frozen at early stage.

> Why not, if it is so inconceivable that a
> vowelless writing system would work for a language that
> differentiates vowels?

*** I don't argue that vowelless system "does not work" for a language with
differentiated vowels. Rather, "if" the vowels are differentiated before
emerging of a writing system, then it is bizarre not to include them in
writing. The vowelless writing might form at a stage of undifferentiated
vowels, and then persisted. ***

> > Also, cuneiform is reasonably developed writing. Syllabic
> > cuneiform, at any rate, is quite late.
>
> Quite late with reference to what? The origin of language?
> If that's the issue, we don't have any evidence of writing
> that goes back anywhere near the beginning.

Perhaps West Semitic shows a trace of the beginning in the absence of
vowels.

Vadim Cherny