Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] comparative historical linguistics was Re: Nun-Tav-Vet root

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
  • To: B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] comparative historical linguistics was Re: Nun-Tav-Vet root
  • Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 10:28:36 -0800

Peter:

On 11/27/06, Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org> wrote:
... How did Hebrews know to
pronounce their word for "bull" shor rather than sor, when the Aramaic
is tor? But shor fits the reconstruction from the common ancestor. And
that's a quick example from memory.

Another example is TLTH for three.

Here's where research is needed, a person who knows both Biblical
Hebrew and Aramaic, is there a pattern that wherever the Hebrew
sibilant is changed to a T in Aramaic, that it is the shin and not the
sin that is changed? My knowledge of Aramaic is too limited to do the
research, but I am curious what the answer would be.

> ...
>> $GG / &GG
>>
>
> &GG is not attested to in Tanakh that I could find.
>
>
I have &GG listed as the root of תְּשַׂגְשֵׂגִי T.:&AG:&"GIY in Isaiah 17:11.
My
list is based on the Westminster parsing database.

Apparently not everyone agrees, as Lisowsky in his concordance lists
it as a pilpal of &WG.

>> $GH / &GH
>>
>
> &GH looks like a variant on &G), a final aleph and hey are sometimes mixed.
>
>
Nevertheless I have it listed as the root used in Job 8:7,11; Psalm
73:12; 92:13.

Yes, I see it listed in references as a root too, but in light of the
near identical meaning of &G) and &GH and the fact that elsewhere the
final hey and final aleph are at times intermingled, as if the final
hey is a later development, is this a clear example of an original
sin/shin phonemic difference?

...
>> $WR / &WR
>>
>
> &WR not attested to
>
>
For this one I have two homonyms listed, each a hapax, "contend" at
Hosea 9:12 and "saw" at 1 Chronicles 20:3.

1 Chronicles 20:3 used in the same way as $RR to ore crushers, while
Hosea 9:12 "in my gazing away from them" in other words God's removing
his protective watch from them, hence the root is $WR.

>>...
>> $KK / &KK
>>
>
> &KK not attested to in Tanakh
>
>
This one is listed as a variant of SKK in Exodus 33:22.

Could also be from the root &WK which means to screen.

...
>> $N) / &N)
>>
>
> $N) not attest to in Tanakh
>
>
This is a variant of $NH in Lamentations 4:1 and Ecclesiastes 8:1.

Lamentations 4:1 looks like $N) = &N) while in Ecclesiastes 8:1 I
agree with you, in which case the root would be listed as &NH

>> $(R, $A(AR / &(R, &A(AR
>>
>
> $(R root not attested to in Tanakh, the noun could be a loan word,
>
>
Proverbs 23:7.

I read that as a noun.

...
>
> If you include samekh as having the same pronunciation as sin, they
> are not that uncommon.
>

I don't. Well, by late biblical times samekh and sin had the same
pronunciation, and consider also the shibboleth incident, but in earlier
times they were distinct letters, with sin very likely being a lateral
fricative (like Welsh "ll"). This explains why Hebrew Kasdim (with sin)
is English Chaldeans - in Akkadian I think this letter was sometimes
transcribed as "s" and sometimes as "l".

That is another question, what was the original pronunciation of the
samekh. That it was not the same as sin/shin can be seen from the
shibboleth incident. By the time we see it in ancient Greece it had
the "X" (ks) sound. Post-Exile it had the same sound as sin.

...

> I'll admit that some of the "can't" is attitudinal, but it still
> results in a can't.
>
>
Not to people whose job is to change attitudes, which in fact should be
part of any good teacher's job.

Wish you good fortune on that. I often deal on the outside where the
people plead inability, and I agree with you that it is mostly
attitudinal. But my situation is where it is not worth arguing.

...

> I still think that a lot of the speculation concerning linguistic
> history is irrelevant to the study of Biblical Hebrew, because
> ultimately we deal with the text as we have it. The language history
> won't change what we have.
>
>
Yes, maybe you are right here. But I think it can help us with
explaining some obscure words, and perhaps in finding obscure homonyms.

--
Peter Kirk
E-mail: peter AT qaya.org
Blog: http://speakertruth.blogspot.com/
Website: http://www.qaya.org/


The final point is not pointing to history, as we don't have a paper
trail to show a history, rather it is to looking at cognate languages.
There I agree with you that it does help with explaining some obscure
terms and difficult passages. But as I always emphasize, looking at
cognate languages ought to be treated with caution, as it could easily
lead us astray.

Karl W. Randolph.



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page