Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Read, James C" <K0434995 AT kingston.ac.uk>]

In fact, pure single vowels in English pronunciations are very 
rare. Most of our vowel sounds which we believe to be one vowel 
sound like two vowels together to latin cultures. And most 
transliteration policies set by British authorities (usually with 
Southern pronunciations) produce very off the mark sounds.

I would say that Peter's assertion that Spanish and Italian sounds 
are a better standard to go by as far as Latin is concered. They are
after all their descendents.


-----Original Message-----
From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org on behalf of Peter Kirk
Sent: Mon 7/25/2005 12:25 AM
To: David P Donnelly
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] IaBe = YHWH or IaBe = Jove?
 
On 23/07/2005 15:39, David P Donnelly wrote:

> ...
> What do you think Peter?
>  
> Are  these above three sites telling the truth?
>  

I don't think these sites are telling deliberate lies. But I think they 
are saying more about modern American English pronunciation than ancient 
Latin.

In standard British English words like "Bob" are pronounced with a 
clearly rounded "o" vowel. But in most American dialects this vowel has 
lost its rounding, so that "Bob" sounds like "Bahb" and is 
indistinguishable from "Bub". (This is one of the easiest ways for us 
Brits to spot an American accent - and the British "Mum" and American 
"Mom" are pronounced almost the same.) The traditional pronunciation of 
Latin by English speakers, probably originating in England, identifies 
(rather misleadingly) the Latin long and short "o" with the English long 
and short "o" sounds. And when American speakers follow these 
pronunciation guidelines, they end up with a sound like "ah" for short 
"o". In fact the Latin sounds are much more likely to have sounded like 
the modern Spanish or Italian "o", short and long with similar qualities.

-- 
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: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.4/57 - Release Date: 22/07/2005

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.


This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.
>From peterkirk AT qaya.org  Sun Jul 24 20:11:29 2005
Return-Path: <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from pan.hu-pan.com (unknown [67.15.6.3])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6D0D4C00B
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Sun, 24 Jul 2005 20:11:29 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from 213-162-124-237.peterk253.adsl.metronet.co.uk
        ([213.162.124.237] helo=[10.0.0.1])
        by pan.hu-pan.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.51)
        id 1DwqZ4-0007pR-6P; Mon, 25 Jul 2005 01:11:28 +0100
Received: from 127.0.0.1 (AVG SMTP 7.0.338 [267.9.4]);
        Mon, 25 Jul 2005 01:11:33 +0100
Message-ID: <42E42E34.80501 AT qaya.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 01:11:32 +0100
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
        rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050511
X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de
To: "Harold R. Holmyard III" <hholmyard AT ont.com>
References: <auto-000079297005 AT mail.link77.net> 
<003701c58ea1$ac0959e0$2c664684@xp>     
<480A1EBA-BE65-41AC-9F32-DD6D50B1644E AT bigpond.net.au>   
<004201c58ece$d2d811b0$30664684@xp>
        <42E100B6.8060700 AT qaya.org>     <004001c58eda$2a611f70$11664684@xp>
        <42E11E54.2060009 AT qaya.org>     
<a06020402bf06e8333ebd@[205.242.61.130]>
        <42E195F9.8060302 AT qaya.org>     
<a06020400bf075c2966be@[205.242.61.240]>
        <42E23A1F.6060502 AT qaya.org>
        <a06020403bf07fdad321e@[205.242.61.138]>
In-Reply-To: <a06020403bf07fdad321e@[205.242.61.138]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse,
        please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - pan.hu-pan.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lists.ibiblio.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - qaya.org
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Aramaic - Abba
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6
Precedence: list
List-Id: Hebrew Bible List <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 00:11:30 -0000

On 23/07/2005 15:35, Harold R. Holmyard III wrote:

> ...
>
>>The last word is. LAMA looks to me like a perfectly good Hebrew word
>>for "why", although I agree that it can also be Aramaic.
>>
>>
>
>HH: I don't what text you are using, but perhaps it is the same one
>Greenspahn was using. In the fourth edition of UBS at Mark 15:34 it
>is the Aramaic word LEMA, not the Hebrew LAMA, that appears. It is
>also LEMA in the third edition of UBS. ...
>

Thank you for the correction, in fact I simply misread the N-A text. But
the textual evidence in Nestle-Aland is very uncertain, and in fact
several early MSS (B, D, theta) do have LAMA. Also, was the Aramaic word
really LEMA with a clear E vowel, or was the first vowel a sheva? I ask
because sheva as well as qamats was usually transliterated as alpha in
Greek, in NT, LXX etc. So the epsilon here seems to be a corrupt form
whether the original was Hebrew or Aramaic.

...

>>Well, I accept that Greenspahn knows his Aramaic. But does he
>>actually explain how ELWI can be Aramaic? I suppose the Aramaic form
>>could be ELAY and this just might have been pronounced something
>>like ELOY. But this is the kind of argument I was expecting from
>>you, rather than citing endless authorities who simply copy from one
>>another.
>>
>>
>
>HH: I already gave that argument by saying there could have been
>dialectal variation.
>
>
>
OK, but more detail would have been useful.

> ...
>
>The main reasoning for me is that we generally speak one language at
>a time, ...
>

Well, this is actually not always true of fully bilingual people. I have
heard people switch between languages in the middle of sentences as a
matter of course in running conversation.

As for newspapers and TV, I didn't want to suggest that they were making
things up, but on matters like this journalists are unlikely to be
experts and so are likely to copy from whatever book they have to hand,
which is very likely a popular work based on original scholarly
documents. So the newspaper is at least a third hand witness. Or
sometimes they quote professors who they interview, which perhaps make
this second hand. The references I want are to the first hand, the
original scholarly work.

Thank you to Shai for bringing us closer to what I want, some good
evidence that Eloi could have been an Aramaic form; but like Dave I
would still like some actual references (even though I am unlikely to be
able to look them up). But I still wonder about the omega. I would
expect omicron-iota for the kind of diphthong which would result from an
-AY ending changing to -OY, whereas omega-iota as attested fits much
better with the long O (holam) and long I in separate syllables of the
Hebrew ELOHIY.

--
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: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.4/57 - Release Date: 22/07/2005