Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Vadim Cherny" <VadimCherny AT mail.ru>
> 
> Why English speakers weren't inspired to add a symbol for ch, as in Chicago,
> and another - for ch, as in chaf?
> 
By the time Chicago was written, spelling rules overruling pronunciation were 
in place. If not, would there have been pressure to amend the spelling of one 
or 
the other? Probably.
> 
> 
> > 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. ***
> 
Vadim: what if the ancient Hebrew writing was not letters as we use them in 
modern languages (and even in some ancient languages such as Greek) giving 
every sound, rather it was a syllabery? And that each syllable was a 
consonant followed by a vowel?

We don’t know how Biblical Hebrew was pronounced. The answer to your question 
may actually be in the fact that the ancients did not pronounce the letters 
in the same manner as we do today. You are asking a question that cannot be 
answered, then making assumptions based on pronunciations that we cannot 
know.

Karl W. Randolph.
-- 
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm