Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Consonant versus consonant clusters

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Kevin Riley <klriley AT alphalink.com.au>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Consonant versus consonant clusters
  • Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 09:06:02 +1000

Jim started the discussion, and he is using "initial" to mean "syllable initial" - which is not an unusual meaning for the term. If the discussion is to be only about 'word initial' consonant clusters then it has nothing to do with what anyone has been discussing. It was clarified some time ago that it was syllable initial consonant clusters that were under consideration. I don't believe his argument stands up, but I don't see any point in redefining the argument to exclude what he is talking about.

Kevin Riley

On 15/06/2010 5:38 AM, Bryant J. Williams III wrote:
Dear Jim,

I understand your use of the English, but...

1. The discussion is about "initial" consonant clusters, i.e. the first
consonant cluster in a word, not the second cluster in a word.

2. The discussion is about Hebrew "initial" consonantal clusters not
Indo-European consonant clusters.

3. So please confine your discussion to items 1 and 2 since that is what
the
discussion is about.

Rev. Bryant J. Williams III
----- Original Message -----
From:<JimStinehart AT aol.com>
To:<jc.bhebrew AT googlemail.com>
Cc:<b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 11:50 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Consonant versus consonant clusters


James Christian:
To analyze consonant clusters, let’s start with the first 10 words in your
first paragraph that are 5 letters or longer in length in English:
1. Promised
2. Myself
3. Involved
4. Discussions
5. Because
6. Always
7. Orienting
8. Around
9. Geographical
10. Theories
Only two have no consonant cluster at all: “because” and “theories”.
One more avoids a consonant cluster by dividing two adjoining consonants
into two different syllables [where the W here is a true consonant]: “always
”. “Always” would be easy for a Hebrew to pronounce, because the
potentially difficult consonant cluster L-W is broken up into two different
syllables: al-ways.
Interestingly, only two have the initial consonant cluster that this
thread is focusing on: “promised” and “geographical”. [In the latter, it’s
the second syllable: GRA.]
The other five have consonant clusters, but they’re not at the beginning
of a syllable, so they’re not directly relevant to this thread. [Whether
any one of more of –ns or –ng or –nd at the end of a word is or is not a
consonant cluster may be debatable, but that’s not directly relevant to this
thread.]
Let’s focus on the English words “promised” and “geographical”, which
exactly represent what I am talking about. In Sanskrit, three of the most
common, basic, discrete syllables are PRA and GRA and SRA or $RA [where the
particular vowel sound involved is irrelevant for our purposes]. In all
Indo-European languages, and in Sanskrit-based names in Kassite and Hurrian,
you are going to see PRA and GRA and $RA, featuring an initial consonant
cluster, out the wazzoo. Those syllables are absurdly easy to say in
English,
so that no English speaker would think to try to avoid such an initial
consonant cluster. “Prod” in English would not be easier to pronounce as
Pa-rod, nor would “grit” be easier to pronounce in English as ga-rit. The
same is true for all languages that have an affinity to Sanskrit.
By sharp contrast, initial consonant clusters like that are difficult to
pronounce in any Semitic language, such as Akkadian or Hebrew. I am n-o-t
saying that they are “impossible” to pronounce in Semitic languages. The
Hebrew word for “two” proves that the Hebrews could on occasion pronounce
an initial consonant cluster. But such initial consonant clusters are
rare in Hebrew.
So consider my homely example of the odd proper name “Shrek”. Though it
sounds a little funny in English, it’s easy to pronounce, being “shriek”
with a short E instead of a long E, or “shred” with a final K instead of a
final D. But a Hebrew could have pronounced “Shrek” as a single syllable
only with considerable difficulty. It’s not natural in Biblical Hebrew.
[Modern Hebrew may be completely different, because modern Hebrew is
heavily influenced by people who often as children spoke European languages
that
have a strong affinity to Sanskrit. I’m talking about Biblical Hebrew,
spoken by people with little contact, if any, with speakers of Indo-European
languages.]
To a Hebrew in Biblical times, Sha-rek would be easy to pronounce, but
Shrek as a single syllable would not have been easy to pronounce. Same with
Akkadian speakers in Kassite Babylonia. By contrast, the Kassite ruling
class, being intimately familiar with Sanskrit-based names, could have
pronounced Shrek as a single syllable in their sleep.
That’s my point. Ka-$ra is real easy to say in Sanskrit, Kassite,
Tibetan, Hurrian, English, and all European languages. But Ka-$ra is quite
difficult to say by a native Hebrew or Akkadian speaker, or in any other
Semitic
language, as long as the Semitic speaker has had little exposure to
Indo-European languages.
I fear that the foregoing linguistic analysis may be ridiculed as being “
kindergarten level”. Maybe so, but it’s still accurate. The Kassite
ruling class could say Ka-$ra [or Ka$-$ra] with no trouble at all, but it
would
have been difficult for Akkadian speakers or Hebrews to say Ka-$ra [or
Ka$-$ra] with that authentic Kassite syllable format. Accordingly, we should
be alert to the possibility that Ka-ra in the Amarna Letters, as the first
2 Akkadian cuneiform syllables in the Akkadian version of the Kassite name
of Kassite Babylonia, may dimly reflect an original Kassite pronunciation
of Ka-$ra. The Hebrew author of Genesis 11: 28, 31 may well have
deliberately declined to adopt Ka-ra from the Akkadian cuneiform of the
Amarna Letters
for the Hebrew version of the name of the Late Bronze Age country in
southern Mesopotamia, on the grounds that his Hebrew audience might thereby
miss
the connection to the Ka$-$u people (the Kassites). So the Hebrew author
brilliantly changed Ka-ra to Ka-$a in K$DYM. That Hebrew version likely
is actually closer to the Kassite original than is the Akkadian cuneiform
version. It’s not a “mistake”. And it’s not coming from the 1st
millennium BCE! Nor does it have anything to do whatsoever with the later
Kaldu/Chaldean people [or with their name], or with the blessed, post-exilic
Book
of Daniel, as scholars would have it.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.3/696 - Release Date: 02/21/2007
3:19
PM

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page