Biblical Hebrew Forum

[James Christian <jc.bhebrew AT googlemail.com>]

Latin merely adds more variables into the mess. The more variables we add
the more plausible explanations can be produced. I was interested to see
Randall make claims of percentage probabilities. In order to that we would
have to construct a computational model accounting for all of the variables
and then assign them weights (just how to do that could introduce even more
variables and a lot of debate with little universal agreement). Then using
Hidden Markov Modelling combined with a beam search we could find the path
maximal probability. I sincerely doubt that Randall or anyone else has done
that and I'm a little suspicious of how we could come quite so easily to
such figures.

James Christian

2010/1/18 James Spinti <JSpinti AT eisenbrauns.com>

> Randall knows what he is talking about. The papyri, inscriptions, and
> DSS all bear out what he is saying--in addition to the evidence from
> transliteration into Latin of Greek words.
>
> James
>
> ________________________________
> James Spinti
> Marketing Director, Book Sales Division
> Eisenbrauns, Good books for more than 30 years
> Specializing in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Studies
> jspinti at eisenbrauns dot com
> Web: http://www.eisenbrauns.com
> Phone: 574-269-2011 ext 226
> Fax: 574-269-6788
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
> [mailto:b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Randall Buth
> Sent: Monday, January 18, 2010 1:18 PM
> To: Hebrew
> Subject: [b-hebrew] Transliterating from Hebrew to Greek
>
> >All we can really say with certainty is that:
> . . .
>
> I didn't repeat your summation because the general picture is
> probably clearer than you were portraying.
>
>
> >> And here one must ask which value of HTA was intended, an [i] or [e],
> and
> >>always remembering to ask according to which manuscripts?
> >> Apparently, HTA went to [i] around the 2nd century CE, maybe a little
> >> later.
> >> Fortunately, because this was about 4-5 centuries later than EI went
> to I,
> >> the spelling traditions with HTA are relatively stable, especially in
> the
> >> centuries 2-5 CE, when the historical spellings were usually
> preserved.
> >
> >I'm not sure you can say most of what you just said in the last
> paragraph
> >with any degree of certainty. >
>
> There is more surety than you may be aware of.
> All reconstructions are within bands of probability, but that being
> said,
> Greek phonologists wouldn't have a problem with my paragraph. See
> Horrocks, Gignac, Bubenik, Teodorrson, even Buth.
>
> EI went to an I sound [pronounced 'ee' in 'feet'] from as early as the
> 4th century
> (Teodorrson) and especially in the 3rd and 2nd c BCE. You can give this
> trend a 99% rating.
> HTA may have started drifting in the first century CE but only appears
> to be
> generally absorbed into I in the 2-3 c CE. Inscriptions and papyri, even
> Dead Sea Greek all make this pretty clear. Roman catacombs too. the
> whole Mediterranean. You can give this a 90 rating. But one must sift
> the
> data as a phonologist and cognizant of how sound systems change
> emically.
> Then the broad strokes are pretty easy.
>
> --
> Randall Buth, PhD
> www.biblicalulpan.org
> randallbuth AT gmail.com
> Biblical Language Center
> Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>