Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

Hello John,

What you write regarding the het/kaph/ghayin/ayin is incorrect.

Het and Ghayin both marked two different sounds the way Shin/Sin
can be so marked.  In that light, it is reasonable that had the
difference been necessary to mark in vocalization, a dagesh would
not be used.  The presence or absence of a dagesh therefore means
nothing regarding whether Het and Ghayin were still identified.

Both Het and Ghayin marked sounds that at one point became
allophones of different sounds, Kaf and Gimel, respectively.  Gary
Rendsburg, who also believes that the Tha sound of Arabic was
retained in some Hebrew dialects, reconstructs the same situation
for Tha vs Taw.  In each such situation, Kaf, Gimel, or Taw,
developed a spirantized allophone in post-vocalic position, Kh, Gh,
or Th, which were identical or almost exactly identical with another
sound in the language, Kha, Ghayin, or Tha.  Rendsburg believes
the difference could have been maintained.  For a different perhaps
more convincing take on the question, see Richard Steiner's article
here::
http://www.sbl-site.org/assets/pdfs/JBL1242.pdf (JBL 124/2)
specifically, p. 258.  (Yigal, I found this with your help!)

Yitzhak Sapir