Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>]

On 20/09/2005 01:39, MarjorieAlley AT cs.com wrote:

> Dr. Peter Kirk wrote:
>
> >>> True, but we are almost certain that phi was an aspirated plosive, at
> least in classical times - perhaps not quite so certain for LXX times. 
> <<<
>
> Would you mind clarifying this for me? Are you saying that you do not 
> necessarily agree with Dr. Hoffman that the LXX's "phi" in 
> Pinchas/Phineas represented a Hebrew pronunciation which differed from 
> the later Massoretic pronunciation?


I do not agree. Dr Hoffman seems to have assumed that for the LXX 
translators phi represented a sound like an English F.

> You're saying that the phi might have been an aspirated plosive ( a 
> "p" rather than an "f" ) when the LXX was written?


Not "might have been", almost certainly was. See 
http://biblicalulpan.org/PDF%20Files/PRONSYS1_US.pdf, by former (?) 
member of this list Randall Buth. Note the following from page 5:

> the voiceless
> fricatives are mainly post-1st century [CE]. ... For the voiceless 
> consonants (φ, θ, χ),
> the typical "Erasmian" soft pronunciations of φεῖ, θη̃τα and χεῖ [phi, 
> theta, chi], common in academic circles today, were taken
> directly from modern Greek. Historically, these "modern" sounds 
> probably entered Greek pronunciation around the
> end of the Roman Koine period.


I accept that some details of Buth's reconstruction are somewhat 
controversial, but the general picture seems clear.

--
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: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.3/106 - Release Date: 19/09/2005