Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>]

On 09/01/2007 18:47, K Randolph wrote:
> ...
> You can ignore me, that's no problem. But why were those others
> "disproved"? Was it on the basis of theory, or new observation? ...

Ask Yitzhak, it was he who mentioned this. Actually he provided (on 3rd 
January) some quotes in German, which I think you understand if he 
doesn't. Here again is the relevant quote from Noldeke, 1873, as given 
by Yitzhak:
> 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.
>   

But you would do better to re-read that post of Yitzhak's.

> ... The
> amount of new discoveries from known Biblical Hebrew in the last
> century is miniscule, so what was it? For all intents and purposes, we
> all are working from the same data.
What, the DSS are minuscule? And the evidence from Ugarit? And many 
other smaller finds? In fact Noldeke's argument goes back to 1873 which 
puts it before the discoveries of the Amarna letters and the Cairo 
geniza as well. So there is plenty of new data to consider.

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