Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 8:24 AM, Yigal Levin wrote:

> 4. On the other hand, the Septuagint spells "Pelishtim" with an initial Phi
> ("Philistines") and not Pi, and "Chanaani" with a Chi rather than a Kappa.
> So it would seem that at the time, Peh and Kaph were always pronounced
> "soft", even at the beginning of a word. But all Beth's are transcribed with
> Beta - does this mean that they were all "hard", or simply that Greek had no
> letter for "v"? SO - Chebron.

Dear Yigal,

While your explanation is very helpful, I think the above needs to be 
corrected.
A good article on the subject is Richard Steiner's "הפא הנחצית במלה אפדנו"
in חקרי עבר וערב (תשנג), p. 551-561.  I summarized it here:
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew/2007-October/034018.html
The basic idea in relation to the above quote of yours is that phi and chi
transcribe aspirated p and k, while the Greek non-aspirated pi and kappa were
used for emphatics (emphatic k being qof).  Latin, however, recognized p, ph,
and f, so transcriptions in Latin (where they are not based on Greek) allow us
more insight into the pronunciation in Hebrew.  This is the basis for the
understanding that Punic also had spirantization, because we have Latin
transcriptions of Punic.  St. Augustine, who lived among Punic-speaking
Africans and spoke Punic himself, wrote that when the peasants are asked
of their heritage, they respond in Punic (transcribed to Latin): chanani.

> More "advanced" books such as
> Talmuds and commentaries were never "dotted"

And just a little comment here: never is a strong word.  "Rarely"
might be better:
http://books.google.com/books?id=0Ps8AAAAIAAJ

Best,
Yitzhak Sapir