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: Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>
  • To: Kevin Riley <klriley AT alphalink.com.au>
  • Cc: B Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Ayin and Ghayin
  • Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 01:13:30 +0000

On 03/11/2005 23:22, Kevin Riley wrote:

You notice I said "seem to fit". We do have a few late inscriptions
written in both Roman and Greek script, and apart from a possible
development of 'kaph' to 'khaph' indicating maybe a development of begad
kepat forms it seems that the consonants do fit the script. Perhaps it is
safer to say that as yet there is not much evidence to suggest that they don
t. Internal evidence suggests that Akkadian, Ugaritic and Aramaic were not
phonemic, and external evidence is available for those languages and Hebrew.
I would not be surprised if Phoenician was not phonemic, but in that case
it is odd that the script fits [with the exception of sin/shin] the language
that [we presume] developed later in Israel and also fits the known
pronunciation of standard Aramaic. It seems better to take that as
indicating that Phoenician was developed for a language with 22 consonants
until we find evidence against that position. The problem with the sin/shin
distinction is that neither Roman nor Greek scripts can distinguish these
sounds.


Fair enough. But we are really only presuming that Phoenician didn't have a sin/shin distinction, and there is also the question of the ayin/ghayin distinction, the one between the two hets, and some other distinctions which survive in Arabic but not in Hebrew or Aramaic. Few of these would be clearly distinguished in Greek or Latin transcription. But then it does seem probable that there was some NW Semitic language, probably at least similar to Phoenician, which has a 22 consonant inventory and which formed the basis of the rather widespread 22 letter alphabet.

By "witness of history" I meant simply that a few ancient writers credited
the Phoenicians with inventing the alphabet, and there is no alternative
claim in historical writings. No such claim is made for the Hebrews having
invented the script, so I prefer to have as a working hypothesis that it was
a Phoenician 'invention'. Reality is usually messier than history suggests,
but surely it is better to go with a theory that has a long history than one
which has no evidence at all?


Well, possibly, but I would hardly trust early Greek sources to distinguish the Phoenicians clearly from other peoples of the eastern Mediterranean coast. Anyway, there is clear although patchy evidence for alphabets earlier than the well known Phoenician one, some in Egypt (Wadi el-Hol) dating back as early as 1800 BCE. While of course this does not rule out the people later known as Phoenicians as the inventors, and that the Greek sources of more than a millennium later had remembered this, it seems more likely to me that the Greeks simply assumed that the alphabet had been invented by the people from whom they borrowed it.

--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page