Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

> ----- Original Message -----
> On 08/02/2006 03:09, Yitzhak Sapir wrote:
> >
> > The standard reconstruction of this particular development is: *-ahu > 
> > *-au
> >
> >> - *o^.  Now, both Davila (blog post in Karl's response and his 
> >> Orthography
> >>
> > article that he quotes there) and Sarfatti, "Hebrew Inscriptions" 
> > (Maarav 3/1,
> > 1982 -- a source Davila references in his Orthography article and which is
> > my source for the above reconstruction) assume this change  to have
> > occurred by the "Biblical period."  But I am not sure what is the basis
> > for assuming the development had proceeded through the *-au and
> > *-o^ stages in pre-exilic times, as opposed to *-ahu being the pre-exilic
> > pronunciation while *-au and *-o^ are the post-exilic ones.  This is not
> > something that cannot be proven -- all we need is an example of -h
> > representing -o^ in pre-exilic times for which there is no explanation or
> > reconstruction as having a consonantal value.  I am not sure there is
> > such an example.

Yitzhak:

I don't know who this Jim Davila is, and actually 
it doesn't matter. There are two reasons I noticed 
why his opinions shouldn't carry much weight.

1) he makes repeated references to proto-Semitic, a 
language nowhere found in the archeological record, 
to bolster his claims.

2) he makes claims for language change that are 
contradicted by the archeological record. For 
example, the use of a waw as an indicator for the 
masculine singular possessive is attested to as 
early as proto-Sinaitic, as well as an internal 
yod as a mater lectionis.

Karl W. Randolph.


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