b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum
List archive
Re: [b-hebrew] comparative historical linguistics was Re: Nun-Tav-Vet root
- 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 15:41:27 -0800
Peter:
Thanks for the list.
On 11/28/06, Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org> wrote:
... (left of repeating details)
This is exactly what my theory predicts. Simple rules based on Aramaic
So I suppose you could argue that Hebrew speakers used sin where there
was an Aramaic cognate with sin, but shin where there was a cognate with
shin or no direct cognate. But this doesn't explain Hebrew words like
(&H "make", which has no known Aramaic cognate: why sin and not shin here?
--
Peter Kirk
E-mail: peter AT qaya.org
Blog: http://speakertruth.blogspot.com/
Website: http://www.qaya.org/
pronunciations that would cover the majority of uses, telling when to
pronounce shin, when sin.
Now the next question based on the above, where there are no cognates,
such as in the case of (&H, are the majority of them written with a
sin, or is there a distribution between sin and shin?
Finally, human endeavors such as language always contains exceptions,
so one cannot expect that all words follow the patterns, the majority
are good enough.
Karl W. Randolph.
-
Re: [b-hebrew] comparative historical linguistics was Re: Nun-Tav-Vet root
, (continued)
- Re: [b-hebrew] comparative historical linguistics was Re: Nun-Tav-Vet root, K Randolph, 11/28/2006
- Re: [b-hebrew] comparative historical linguistics was Re: Nun-Tav-Vet root, Peter Kirk, 11/29/2006
- Re: [b-hebrew] comparative historical linguistics was Re: Nun-Tav-Vet root, K Randolph, 11/29/2006
- Re: [b-hebrew] comparative historical linguistics was Re: Nun-Tav-Vet root, Peter Kirk, 11/30/2006
- Re: [b-hebrew] comparative historical linguistics was Re: Nun-Tav-Vet root, K Randolph, 11/30/2006
- Re: [b-hebrew] comparative historical linguistics was Re: Nun-Tav-Vet root, davidfentonism, 11/28/2006
- Re: [b-hebrew] comparative historical linguistics was Re: Nun-Tav-Vet root, Peter Kirk, 11/29/2006
- Re: [b-hebrew] comparative historical linguistics was Re: Nun-Tav-Vet root, K Randolph, 11/28/2006
- Re: [b-hebrew] comparative historical linguistics was Re: Nun-Tav-Vet root, Yitzhak Sapir, 11/28/2006
- Re: [b-hebrew] comparative historical linguistics was Re: Nun-Tav-Vet root, Peter Kirk, 11/28/2006
- Re: [b-hebrew] comparative historical linguistics was Re: Nun-Tav-Vet root, K Randolph, 11/28/2006
- Re: [b-hebrew] comparative historical linguistics was Re: Nun-Tav-Vet root, Isaac Fried, 11/25/2006
- Re: [b-hebrew] comparative historical linguistics was Re: Nun-Tav-Vet root, K Randolph, 11/25/2006
- Re: [b-hebrew] reading unpointed Hebrew, Isaac Fried, 11/26/2006
- Re: [b-hebrew] comparative historical linguistics was Re: Nun-Tav-Vet root, Isaac Fried, 11/25/2006
- Re: [b-hebrew] comparative historical linguistics was Re: Nun-Tav-Vet root, Peter Kirk, 11/24/2006
-
Re: [b-hebrew] comparative historical linguistics was Re: Nun-Tav-Vet root,
K Randolph, 11/27/2006
- [b-hebrew] Sorting Hebrew, Bob MacDonald, 11/27/2006
- Re: [b-hebrew] Sorting Hebrew, Peter Kirk, 11/28/2006
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.