Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Kevin Riley" <klriley AT alphalink.com.au>]

Karl seems to want this discussion confined to pre-Exilic evidence.  The
Amarna letters are the only evidence I know of - and Ugaritic if the longer
alphabet includes shin and sin, as I believe it does.  As Karl excludes both
because they are *not Hebrew*, we are left with no acceptable evidence. 
Without some discovery of a manuscript/inscription that is pre-Exilic and
includes a distinction of sin and shin, or a translation of names into a
language that clearly differentiates /s/ and /S/, it is unlikely there will
be evidence.  Otherwise it remains a matter of one person asserting that
there was no distinction and another asserting there was.  That seems like a
waste of time, IMO.
 
Kevin Riley
 
-------Original Message------- 
 
From: Peter Kirk 
Date: 11/01/2007 10:47:26 AM 
 
On 10/01/2007 22:38, Kevin Riley wrote: 
> ... 
> The *letters* are not separate in any of the alphabets used in Canaan
prior 
> to pointed Hebrew. ... 
 
I thought I had understood that a distinction was made in some of the DSS. 
 
Yitzhak has also pointed out that a distinction was made in at least 
Some of the Amarna letters. As these are syllabic cuneiform, they are 
Not technically alphabets, but your statement could otherwise be confusing. 
 
The letters are of course distinct in Arabic, which was certainly used 
In the land earlier known as Canaan before the time of the Masoretes. 
The difference depends on the three dots on Arabic shin, but this 
Distinction was already made in 642 CE, see 
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Papyri/PERF558.html 
(first letter of the last line is a dotted shin; an undotted sin is 
Visible in the fifth word of this line). 
 
-- 
Peter Kirk