Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Peter:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Kirk" <peter AT qaya.org>
> 
> On 03/11/2005 17:29, Karl Randolph wrote:
> 
> > ...  The proposition that the ancients did not know enough to 
> > write a phonetic alphabet is laughable, examples include 
> > apparently Tiffineg (originated in Scandinavia, there used 
> > apparently about 18th century BC) ...
> >
> 
> ??? Tifinagh is a script used in northern Africa in modern times, 
> not an ancient Scandinavian script. If something like this was used 
> in ancient Scandinavia, we have no way of knowing how phonetic or 
> otherwise it might have been.
> 
It has been found in some ancient Scandinavian rock 
art, where, if read phonetically, it reveals an ancient but 
recognizably Nordic language. How it ended up still being 
used in northern Africa ... ??

> > ... and Ugaritic from the 14th century BC if the earlier dates 
> > are correct. ...
> >
> 
> Here we have exactly the same issues as with Phoenician. The corpus 
> may be larger, but all we know about the language is based on the 
> assumption that the script is phonetic, which means that it is 
> methodologically impossible to prove that the script is phonetic.
> 
Admittedly true. But notice, it starts with the assumption 
that the language was phonetic. All I am doing is applying 
the same assumption to Biblical Hebrew of 1000 BC or 
older, not 600 AD after a millennium of frozen spelling, 
language change and no native speakers.

We can't prove that it was phonetic, but modern practice 
is equally unable to disprove that it was phonetic.

Further, the assumption that it was phonetic fits better all 
the examples of alphabetic writing systems I have seen 
where the spelling remained fluid, unlike modern 
examples like English, French and Latin, where the 
spelling is frozen to archaic forms while the spoken 
language varies.

> I don't say that the ancients could not have used a phonetic 
> script. All we can say is that there are scripts which we know were 
> not phonetic, and scripts concerning which we cannot know whether 
> they were phonetic or not, but none that we actually know were 
> phonetic.
> 
> -- Peter Kirk
> peter AT qaya.org (personal)
> peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
> http://www.qaya.org/

If you want absolute proof, I agree, there's no way that we 
could get it apart from inventing a time machine so that we 
could interview native speakers. But at the same time, we 
do not know that they were not phonetic. Because of my 
studies, I come down on the side that I think it more likely 
that they were phonetic than not phonetic. Others 
disagree with me.  ...  <shrug>

Karl W. Randolph.


-- 
___________________________________________________
Play 100s of games for FREE! http://games.mail.com/