Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] XBR vs. ubburu: Hebron

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: JimStinehart AT aol.com
  • To: yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com, b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] XBR vs. ubburu: Hebron
  • Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 10:28:07 EST


[Note: Kevin Riley’s complete message is reproduced in full at the end of
this post of mine, because I am not sure if it showed up on the b-hebrew
list.
His post should be read before mine.]


Kevin Riley:

1. You wrote: “How does the fact that heth changes to aleph in Assyrian
mean that it is therefore a 'prefix'?”

Only if the letter in question is an initial letter that later got lost in
Akkadian/Assyrian. The permanent loss of an initial letter logically implies
that it was not an integral part of the root, but rather was a mere prefix.

2. You wrote: “Hebrew did not take these words from Akkadian, but they are
inherited from an earlier stage of Semitic ancestral to both.”

Perhaps so, though attested Akkadian writing is much, much older than
attested Biblical Hebrew writing.

3. You wrote: “Hebrew changed X to heth, Akkadian changed heth to 'aleph,
which
was then often lost. So you find heth in Hebrew, X or 'aleph or nothing in
the Akkadian cognates.”

Where an X or ‘aleph as the initial letter in an Akkadian word is dropped and
becomes permanently lost, that logically implies that it had been a mere
prefix, not an integral part of the root.

4. You wrote: “I do not understand why you got the idea that the gutturals
are any less 'real' sounds in Hebrew than any others.”

A heth/X in Biblical Hebrew is definitely a real sound. But in initial
position, is a heth/X always an integral part of a word’s root? No. Thus in
Aramaic, the heth/X in XQR) is equivalent to the prosthetic aleph/) in )QR).
Both
of those words mean “citadel” in Aramaic, and the root is simply QR.

Now we come to XBRN/“Hebron”. Is that X + BR + N, where the heth/X is
merely a prefix, and the root is BR? That’s my theory of the case. To my
mind,
everything that you and Yitzhak Sapir have said about Akkadian cognates on
this
thread appears to be consistent with my controversial theory of the case.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois


[Here is Kevin Riley’s complete post.]

Can we go back a bit here, please. How does the fact that heth changes to
aleph in Assyrian mean that it is therefore a 'prefix'? All the gutturals,
except x, become 'aleph in Assyrian. You cannot pick and choose which cases
become 'prefixes'. Your argument makes no more sense than suggesting that
when we see an 'h' in one language, and no 'h' in another [like in the
Romance languages], that that indicates the first syllable is a prefix. All
it means is that language changes and sometimes 'h's are dropped. The
change from heth to 'aleph and then the eventual loss of 'aleph is no
different. When it happened does not matter. As Old Babylonian records
show what is presumed to be 'alephs, it was earlier than about 2000 BC. The
loss of 'aleph was later than that. Hebrew did not take these words from
Akkadian, but they are inherited from an earlier stage of Semitic ancestral
to both. Hebrew changed X to heth, Akkadian changed heth to 'aleph, which
was then often lost. So you find heth in Hebrew, X or 'aleph or nothing in
the Akkadian cognates. I do not understand why you got the idea that the
gutturals are any less 'real' sounds in Hebrew than any others. If you took
the time to learn a couple of Semitic languages, and perhaps a little
historical linguistics as well you would not jump to some of the conclusions
you do - or perhaps you would. Just learning the conventions of how various
languages represent sounds might be a good start.

Kevin Riley

**************Need a job? Find an employment agency near you.
(http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=employment_agencies&ncid=emlcntusyelp00000003)




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page