Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

On 1/9/07, 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,

Then please don't cite these percentages as fact.

> 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.

The question is if this is an interesting or in any way productive
project for someone who is at a grad student level.  Just like a grad
student in physics would probably not feel very productive if he did
his master's thesis on how balls fall off the tower of Pisa, so too
a grad student in biblical studies would not feel much productive
if he examined a question that is pretty much considered decided
by linguists.

> > > 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.

My theory says that sin and shin were separate letters all along.  My
theory does not say that if sin and shin were separate letters all along,
there should be "many more examples."

> > > 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.

> From my point of view, observation is a repeatable and more importantly
it is something that is not open to debate as to its substance.  For
example, if you say the sky is blue, that is an observation, and I can
integrate that into my data even to propose alternate theories.  If you
say the sky is a big ocean on top of the earth, that is no longer an
observation but a theory.  If you say $M is used in a particular
verse, that is an observation.  If you say $M means "that place" that
is a theory.  It may be a theory that is simple to substantiate, but
from my point of view, it is still a theory, because meanings of
Biblical words are things that are open to debate.  This means that
if you connect two words as two conjugations of the same root,
or that if you claim two words are part of the same parallelism, those
too are theories, even though they may be easy to substantiate.

> A detailed study would verify or falsify my seat of the pants observation.

> From my point of view, falsifying an observation generally comes as a
result of erroneous "measurement".

> > > 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?

The statements:
1) the lack of words where sin and shin denote a difference in meaning
2) 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
3) some words where the same meaning is sometimes spelled with a sin,
sometimes with a shin
all seem to refer to very similar concepts.  (1) and (3) would appear to
be somewhat complementary.  The main difference is that (1) goes further
and claims that there is a lack of words where your principle does not
hold, while (3) argues that only in some words does your principle hold.
(2) appears to be a generalization from words to roots.

> > > 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.

They are evidence, even if you would like to belittle this evidence as
opposed to your "definite proof."  (How does one decide that one
evidence is definite and another insignificant?)  In any case, you
appear to be unaware of the Bar Kokhba letters, the Mishnah, the
variants of Hebrew found in the DSS, and various allusions in the
Talmud to the maids of the house (school?) of Judah the Prince
speaking native Hebrew.  All these seem to suggest that until the
2nd century CE, Hebrew was still a native language in various parts
of Israel.  From at least the 9th century BCE onwards, both Hebrew
and Aramaic were languages learned "at one's mother's knee" (which
appears to be your description of an L1 language) in different towns
and states of the region.  How is that in any way significant?  And if
you are going to suggest that the pointing represents a tradition that
was "corrupted in transmission" (I wouldn't phrase it that way) and
also use me as a reference, then please also accept that the
Massoretic consonantal text was just as prone to "corruption" as the
vowels.

> > ...   That you say they may be safely ignored is a theory.
>
> For me, it is observation, not theory.

Again, an observation is objective and not something that should be
open to debate as to its substance.

> > ...  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

We agree!

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

This interpretation (as well as other interpretations) of the evidence is
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.

May I suggest you tone your words down a bit?

Any way, I am not the one who has to do your work for you.  I can
however suggest that perceptions based on eclectic instances of
"evidence" is often deceptive.  I had an hypothesis that I followed up
regarding the word "hmh" in the Bible, and I found that the uses in
the Bible did not substantiate my hypothesis statistically.  I have
therefore slightly modified my hypothesis but have not gotten around
to doing the wider statistical study that is necessary to substantiate
this modified hypothesis.  If you arrive at an observation of a few uses
of certain words, and would like to make a claim as to their significance,
then it is your job to do the work and the statistical study necessary
to substantiate -- not me nor grad students.  Otherwise all you will
be left touting is unsubstantiated claims.

> 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.

No.  In order to prove a claim, one needs to argue and substantiate that
the claim holds for a wide variety of cases.  In order to disprove a claim,
one needs to show the claim does not hold for a few cases or adequately
explains them.

> > ...    that you simply do not
> > wish to accept any evidence which can intrude on your theories.
>
> What evidence? You have not provided any.

I have provided evidence from West Semitic transcriptions from the
second millennium BCE, from Ugarit, from the Amarna period
correspondence (which includes letters written in later Judea and Israel
and sent to Amarna, Taanach, and elsewhere), and Aramaic.  You
refuse to learn Aramaic, even though it would appear that knowing
Aramaic is central to your theory.

> 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?

They are scholars, and I disagree with their position.  I think that is clear.
In fact, it appears that the position closest to yours is represented by
Garbini but would you accept his other claims about the Bible?  But
more importantly, as scholars they all accept evidence and recognize
the importance of evidence for arguing a position.  Perhaps they
themselves will recognize Steiner's or Blau's arguments as decisive
refutations of their position.  In contrast, you deny the evidence as
being of any use for your position, refuse to learn or look at such
evidence, and the result is that what you are doing is essentially
misinforming others about the nature of ancient Hebrew including
touting percentages that you have never calculated.  As such, I think
it is only fair that others see the other side of the story.  Similarly, I
think it is only fair that when I come upon a discussion of an issue that
has taken a central place in our discussion, even and especially if it
quotes scholars that have held a similar position to yours, that I bring
it to attention.

As for Steiner's article, Steiner opens by discussing a position of
Garbini's.  This position apparently suggests that Shin and Sin
were never originally separate in Hebrew.  This is of interest to
Steiner, because Steiner who argues that Sin was a lateral
fricative as opposed to Shin.  In the addenda he deals with this
shortly and then compares a similar viewpoint that Shin and Sin
were originally separate but were later merged in Hebrew and
then were distinguished again because of the influence of
Aramaic.  Because Diem provides details of the mechanism
by which this could have occurred, Steiner disputes specific
points that are of relevance to Diem's arguments.  Steiner does
not dispute then the "Aramaization of Hebrew" nor does he "need"
to bring scholars who voice this position in order to dispute it.
However, it appears to me that his purpose it to show that even
a less radical position than Garbini's, although defended superbly,
can still be convincingly rebutted.  This shows for one that
Garbini's evidence can be explained in accord with Steiner's
theory of an original differentiation of Shin and Sin, but also it
underscores that Garbini's position is all the more unlikely.

Yitzhak Sapir