Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] T-SADE

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Arnaud Fournet" <fournet.arnaud AT wanadoo.fr>
  • To: "Will Parsons" <wbparsons AT alum.mit.edu>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] T-SADE
  • Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2010 11:27:12 +0200


----- Original Message ----- From: "Will Parsons" <wbparsons AT alum.mit.edu>
To: <fournet.arnaud AT wanadoo.fr>
Cc: <jc.bhebrew AT googlemail.com>; <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 10:19 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] T-SADE


From: "Arnaud Fournet" <fournet.arnaud AT wanadoo.fr>
Subject: [b-hebrew] T-SADE
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 11:46:39 +0200


Maybe this has already been discussed before, but I have some questions
about the affricate or non affricate pronunciation of (T)SADE.

Cantineau 1954 discusses a Greek manuscrit called Vaticanus of the
Lamentations supposedly dating back to the IVth century AD, which mentions
in Greek letters Tau-Sigma-Alpha-D-Eta as name of that letter. He infers
from that document that the affricate pronunciation must be old and possibly
the original one. So I have a handful of questions about the presumed
authenticity of that manuscrit, its dating and its relevance for TSADE or
SADE, possible alterations or any reason to conclude in this or that
direction, or not to conclude at all, or to prefer some other better
reference for that issue. What should exactly be thought about that issue?

I don't have Cantineau's work to examine, or a facsimile of the Codex
Vaticanus, but the sigla in my copy of the Septuagint indicate that reading
in the Codex Vaticanus is τιαδη/tiade rather than τσαδη/tsade. Even if the
reading *is* τιαδη/tiade, it probably doesn't support an ancient value of
[ts] for sadhe. I don't know what Cantineau means by "old" (Biblical times,
or IVth century AD?), but it's very unlikely that sadhe had the affricate
value [ts] when it was spoken as a mother tongue. The emphatics in
Hebrew as in other Semitic languages form a series contrasting on one
hand to unvoiced series and the other a voice series of obstruents. As
far as I know, there are two attested phonetic realizations of "emphatics",
velarized/laryngealized type of Arabic, and the glottalized type of the
African Semitic languages (more likely for Hebrew). In either case, we have
parallel series /s - S - z/ like /t -T - d/ like /k - K - g/. An affricate
like [ts] doesn't fit this model.
***
I would call that kind of argument an "aesthetical" one.
That you can nicely put phonemes in rows and columns is not a convincing proof of what they might really be.
I'm not a structuralist to the point of believing that "structure rules".

In addition, it's well known from Egyptian hieroglyphic that tsamekh was nearly doubtless an affricate [ts] (S p r scribe => t_ p r and not **s p r as is expected) and as a matter of that nearly all sibilants have been used to write /s/ in Greek or Ethiopian but this precise one. So in fact if one believes in "aesthetical" argumentation, the conclusion would rather be that there is "systemic" support for an affricate /ts./ade because tsamekh was itself /ts/.

The reference given by Barry about Latino-Punic would also support this idea for Phoenician.
http://tinyurl.com/2ajft7x

It can also be noted that glottalization is easier and more efficient with stops or affricates than with plain fricatives.

A.
***



Even if what Cantineau means by "old" is the IVth century AD, the
transcription with ΤΣ/TS (if in fact that *is* in the Codex Vaticanus)
would give negligible evidence in favour of a [ts] in the comtemporary
Hebrew pronunciation. Consider the problem of the transcriber: he is
faced with a funny S-sound that doesn't really correspond with anything in
Greek. Of course, in the text of the LXX itself, sadhe (as well as shin)
is regularly transcribed as sigma, since that is the nearest Greek
approximation to both Hebrew sounds (and indeed, most manuscripts of
LXX use σαδη/sade instead of τσαδη/tsade here). If the transcriber
wanted to indicate the "funny" sound, he had to improvise. If the
reading *is* TS, that might be taken as evidence that *Greek*, not Hebrew,
had developed a [ts] affricate in the IVth century (which is far more
likely).
***
I don't really understand the idea.
if the original were /s./ what is a t- doing there?
Why is it likely that Greek should develop an affricate? out of which sound?

A
***



I mentioned above shin also as being transcribed by sigma. Apparently,
according to my sigla, there is also an attempt to indicate shin more
accurately in the Vaticanus, ρηχς/rekhs (resh) χσεν/khsen (shin).
This isn't evidence that shin was pronounced something like [ks], only
that the transcriber was trying desperately hard to find something that
would suggest the Hebrew pronunciation.
William Parsons
***
To some extent this is also an argument against emphasis being pharyngeal or velar, or too much upward in the throat, as we would expect this kind of graphic devices for tsade if it were the case.

Best

Arnaud Fournet
***






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page