Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

Steiner's discussion of fricative laterals brings up the issue of Sin
and Shin.  His discussion reminds one of Karl's argument and so
I thought it best to bring it up.  I actually wanted to also look up
Alice Faber's discussion which apparently raises the possibility
that Sin was a development before Proto-Semitic.  I haven't gotten
around to accessing that article yet, so this is why the recent
discussion of Sin/Shin sort of died off.  I think Steiner's comments
would be of interest to the list, so I produce the relevant page and a
half discussion from: Steiner, "Addenda to /The Case For Fricative
Laterals/", in Kaye, Alan S. (ed.), Semitic studies in honor of Wolf
Leslau on the occasion of his 85th birthday, November 14th, 1991.
Vol 2. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz 1991.  I have almost no idea what
the German says, but I can guess :), and maybe I will run it through
google's translator.  I am using # to represent Shin without any dot.

Garbini was not the first to suggest that the Masoretic distinction
between $ and & was introduced from Aramaic.  The very same
notion was entertained nearly a century earlier by Noldeke (1873: 121):

Es liegt freilich sehr nahne, die Trennung von $ and & so zu erkla:ren,
dass in vielen fru:her mit /sch/ gesprochnen Wo:rtern spa:ter die
Aussprache /s/ u:blich geworden und durch eine abweichende
Punctation bezeichnet wa:re...; natu:rlich habe ich mir die Sache
fru:her zun:chst auch so gedacht.  Kein Gegengrund wa:re noch,
dass im Arama:ischen fu:r hebra:isches $ entweder auch & oder,
spa:ter allein, gradezu [Samekh] erscheint.  Man mu:sste dann
annehmen, dass sich jene hebr. Lautvera:nderung (wie vermutlich
die Aspriation der BGDKPT) unter arama:ischem Einfluss vollzogen
ha:tte.

Noldeke, however, rejected this idea, on the following grounds:

Aber entscheidend ist fu:r die Urspru:nglichkeit des $ die Thatsache,
dass dasselbe im Arabischen ganz anders reflectirt wird als &; jenes
na:mlich durch [Arabic Shin], dieses durch [Arabic sin] oder [Arabic
tha].  Mithin ist anzuerkennen, dass die alten Hebra:er mit ihrem #
zwei a:hnliche Laute ausdru:ckten, von denen aber der eine mit der
Zeit ganz den Laut des [Samekh] annahm.

Brockelmann (1982 <1908>:133) found this argument so convincing
that he regarded the matter as closed:

Die a:ltere Ansicht, daB Shin urspru:nglich einen einheitlichen Laut
darstelle, der sich spa:ter gespalten habe, du:rfte heute kaum noch
Vertreter finden.

Nodeleke's argument, recently upheld by Blau (1977) and Beeston
(1977), suffices to refute Garbini's version of the theory of Aramaic
influence but not the version put forward by Beyere (1969: 12) and
Diem (1974).  These scholars, unlike Garbini, do not
deny that Proto-Semitic had a contrast between */s'/ and */$/.  Their
claim is that the contrast was lost in ancient Hebrew through phonemic
merge and reintroduced with the help of Aramaic.[5]

This version of the theory can be defended far more easily than
Garbini's, and Diem has done a superb job in that area.  Nevertheless,
I find Blau's rebuttal (1977:100-109) of Diem's arguments convincing.
I wish to add only two points.

First, Diem's discussion leaves an important question unasked and
unanswered.  If Aramaic influence is the source of the distinction
between Shin and Sin, why is there only one such distinction in the
Tiberian, Palestinian, and Babylonian systems?  Why was no
distinction introduced between Shin and Tin, Zayin and Dayin,
Sade and Tade?  Why wasn't $WR read as TWR, ZHB as DHB,
and QYC as QY+ in the same way that (#R was read as (SR?

Second, there is extensive evidence from Qumran which cannot be
ignored, since the distinction between $ and & is already attested
there.[6]  Diem (1974:244) believes that the Aramaic reflex of PS /s'/
(vis. /s/) had more prestige than the Hebrew reflex (allegedly /$/), but
that the overwhelming preference for the spelling with # in the Hebrew
Qumran scrolls (Qimron 1986: 24) shows that the opposite was the
case.  So does the fact that the spelling of PS /s'/ with Samekh is
significantly more common in vulgar texts with a large admixture of
Mishnaic Hebrew like MMT (Qimron 1986: 24) and (to an even
greater extent) the Copper Scroll[7].  The pattern of scribal corrections
in the Hebrew Qumran scrolls points in the same direction: all of the
corrections involving */s'/ are from Samekh to # (Qimron 1976: 80,
1986: 24).[8]  Thus the pattern at Qumran exhibits the normal scribal
preference for conservative historical spelling found after a sound
change - not the preference for an innovative Aramaizing spelling which
Diem's theory requires.[9]

[5] Diem (1974: 244-245) leaves open both the question of whether or
not the contrast was reintroduced in a phonetically altered form and the
question of whether or not it was introduced while the language was still
alive.

[6] In these documents, the reflex of PS /$/ "is generally written # (about
1000 times) but very occasionally [Samekh]" (Qimron 1986: 24).  There
are also cases where the reflex of PS /s/ is written with # instead of
[Samekh], which, following Ben-Hayyim (1978: 284-285) against Qimron
(1986: 29-30) should possibly be viewed as hypercorrections.  The single
case of PS /$/ written with Samekh (Qimron 1986: 29) cannot affect our
conclusions.

[7] In the edition of Luria (1963), I count at least fifteen certain examples
of */s'/ written with Samekh but only three written with #!

[8] By contrast, all of the cases involving PS /s/ go in the other direction
(Qimron 1986: 28).

[9] Cf. also Blau's argument (1977: 107) that it was Hebrew, "serving as the
sacred tongue of the synagogue", which was the prestige language after its
demise, whereas Aramaic was merely the vernacular.

Diem, Werner.  1974.  Das Problem von $ im Althebra:ischen und die
kanaana:ische Lautverschiebung.  ZDMG 124: 221-52.

Beyer, Klaus.  1969. Althebra:ische Grammatik.  Go:ttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht.

Blau, Josuha.  1977. 'Weak' phonetic change and the Hebrew $in.  Hebrew
Annual Review 1:67-119.

Qimron, Elisha. 1986. The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls.  Harvard Semitic
Series.  Atlanta: Scholars.

Noldeke, Theodor. 1873. Review of J. Wellhausen, Der Text der Bu:cher
Samuelis untersucht.  Zeitschrift fu:r wissenschaftliche Theologie 16: 117-22.