Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Ayin and Ghayin

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>
  • To: "B Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Ayin and Ghayin
  • Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 13:37:00 -0500

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/





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page