Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Arnaud Fournet" <fournet.arnaud AT wanadoo.fr>]

----- 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: Monday, July 26, 2010 11:08 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] T-SADE


> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 07:41:47 +0200, "Arnaud Fournet" 
> <fournet.arnaud AT wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> > Needless to say that I consider the approach of Saenz-Badillos (A History 
> > of
> > the Hebrew Language) to be complete nonsense and not far from
> > antiscientific. There is an overwhelming body of data that shows that
> > approach to be completely wrong.
>
> I'm not familiar with Saenz-Badillos; what's his(?) approach?
***
A substantial part of his book is on google books.
Basically his "proto-semitic" is a kind of proto-hebrew projected in the 
past.
A.
***


> > ***
> > I do not see why it is uncertain.
> > That occurence is certain!? even if it may be isolated.
>
> *You* may think it is certain, but *I* don't have access to a facsimile of
> Codex Vaticanus so that I can judge for myself, and the sigla of the 
> edition
> of the LXX in my possession contradict that reading.  To me, that makes it
> uncertain.
***
Somebody read it TS before (Cantineau) and it's written in other works by 
other persons. (See Barry's references)
To me it's certain. Your edition may not be as good as you think, I'm 
afraid.
A.
***


> Anyway, I think we both have reached the point where we're not bringing
> anything new into the argument, so I don't intend to carry on in this 
> thread.
> Before closing,
***
This is more "meta-discussion" than the real thread. But this paragraph 
sounds a bit funny.
The list should close this thread (?) because *you* don't intend [= your 
right anyway] to carry on in this thread and "we" ( in fact *you*) are not 
bringing anything new.
I can't help thinking this "shortcut" between your intention and what the 
list should do is a bit funny.
Or I misunderstand what "before closing" means.
A.
***


> I would like to point out one last time that even if the
> reading you like can be verified, it *still* doesn't follow that it would
> necessarily reflect a Hebrew pronuncation of [tsade].  If you think that 
> it
> would, ask yourself if you are prepared to argue that Hebrew shin was
> pronounced [khs] on the basis of the Greek rendering of the name as khsen.
> William Parsons
***
Somebody, maybe you, suggested that Greek s was / is very much fronted.
This may just reflect some kind of perceived breathiness or velarization of 
Hebrew SH when compared to -S-.
In all cases SH is more grave and more velar than s (fronted or not) so it's 
not phonetically absurd that people would "spontaneously" do that.

Arnaud Fournet