Biblical Hebrew Forum

["K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

On 1/7/07, Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/7/07, K Randolph wrote:
>
> > But in Hebrew, there are only a few roots where the sin or shin denote
> > differences in meaning, about the same percentage of uses as for words
> > that have the same pronunciation without a sin or shin present.
>
> I've never seen this claim of percentages substantiated numerically.
I haven't either, For someone who has the time, this would be an
interesting research project. For those of you on this list who are
grad students, such a study may provide the basis for a masters
thesis.

> > If the
> > sin and shin were separate letters all along, theory says there should
> > be many more examples, but they are not there.
>
> Whose theory?  Maybe that theory is simply wrong?
Your theory, Or at least the theory that you ascribe to. And based on
observation, I think there is a good probability that that theory is
wrong.

> > Secondly, looking at meaning, I noticed words where the only thing
> > that would indicate that two different words did not come from the
> > same root was that one was with a sin, the other with a shin. The
> > example I have given is &YM to place and $M that place, there, their
> > meanings pointing to a common origin, common root.
>
> This again is a theory, that appears to your modern English semantics
> to describe the semantics of ancient Hebrew.
Observation, man, observation, not theory.

> > I have noticed
> > other examples as well, only that I have not made an organized study
> > of the phenomenon prevents me from having an organized list of such.
>
> Which means that you did not even try to substantiate the theory.
Again observation, not theory. What needs to be done is a statistical
study, as I am going by a seat of the pants observation, not a
detailed study. A detailed study would verify or falsify my seat of
the pants observation.

> > Thirdly, I noticed some words where the same meaning is sometimes
> > spelled with a sin, sometimes with a shin. If they originally were two
> > letters, that shouldn't be found.
>
> How is this "thirdly" much different from "secondly" or different at all
> from "the first problem"?
Huh? I mentioned three different observations, how are they the same?

> > After having made these observations, I then go back and look at the
> > theory that sin and shin were always separate letters, and say that
> > these observations show that there is a problem with that theory. In
> > fact, the data seem to show that they were originally one letter that
> > was later split into two.
> >
> > What comes first: data or theory? I say data. What do you say?
>
> The dots on the shin are evidence.

They are not the evidence you think they are. For one, they date from
a millennium after we have definite proof that people spoke Biblical
Hebrew as their mother tongue. Secondly, they long postdate when
Aramaic became the language learned at one's mother's knee. Thirdly,
they represent a tradition that you yourself admit may have been
corrupted in transmission.

> ...   That you say they may be safely
> ignored is a theory.

For me, it is observation, not theory.

> ...  That Qumran manuscripts show a tendency
> to correct words with the letter Shin/Sin to Samekh in cases mainly
> where the letter is later identified as Sin is evidence.

This is evidence of post-Exile pronunciation, precisely when I say
that Aramaic influenced a change in pronunciation of Hebrew. It is not
evidence against my claim.

> ...  That this
> indicates the Qumran authors differentiated Sin and Shin is theory.
> That &M "put" and $M "there" are translated in the LXX in a specific
> way is evidence.  That they are identified by you as coming from the
> same root is theory.

That they show a similarity of meaning, indicating a similarity of
root, is observation, not theory.

> ...  That Hebrew and Aramaic have words $QL and
> TKL, respectively, is evidence.  That they are cognates is theory.

Do they have the same meaning? Then it is observation, not theory.

> Some of these theories can be convincingly argued.  Others cannot.
> You discredit evidence (the Massoretic Shin/Sin distinction) on the
> basis of unsubstantiated theories (see above about your not having
> made an organized study of the "phenomenon").   So, you tell me,
> which comes first?
I have made an observation (actually three), but have not made an
organized study of it. You dispute my observation on the basis of
theory. Either you make a statistical study of the frequencies of
shared roots, complete with appendices showing the words you studied,
or you shut your mouth up. I have noticed something. I have not made a
detailed study of what I observed. In order to prove or disprove it,
one needs to make a statistical study, and you have not done that.

> Much of this covers issues we have dealt with in the past, and which
> I think convinced everyone on the list but you

See above.

> ...    that you simply do not
> wish to accept any evidence which can intrude on your theories.

What evidence? You have not provided any.

> ...  I felt,
> upon reading the article in the initial post of this thread, that it was
> only proper to bring this into the discussion.  I am all for an argument
> that is argued in view of the evidence even if I have to change previously
> held beliefs and assumptions as a result.  As this was new information
> related to this ongoing discussion, I felt it was useful to bring it in.
Yes, I found the articles interesting. In particular, I found it
interesting to find scholars who had made the same claims I have made.
It also means that I cannot claim to be the originator of that
observation, i.e. the first to make that observation.

What I find interesting is when they made that observation, you simply
claim that they are scholars. But when I made exactly the same claim,
you try your hardest to disprove me. Why?

> Yitzhak Sapir

Karl W. Randolph.