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: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 06:55:22 +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: 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








Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page