Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Karl:

Since we are allowed one final posting on this thread, let me summarize what 
I think of it.
Garth started out with an interesting question brought up by Blau on the 
development of Hebrew language. The reason I found it interesting is because 
it mirrors some of the thoughts and conclusions I have concerning change in 
Hebrew from Biblical Hebrew before the Babylonian Exile, and Mishnaic Hebrew 
of the Greek and Roman eras. While we disagree sharply on the timing of the 
change, Garth’s description of Blau’s theory sounds recognizably similar to 
my ruminations.
***
For the time being, I'm not competent enough to have any opinion.
I'll observe what you and others want to say on these issues.
A.
***


In short, I have raised the questions: what was the original pronunciation 
of written Hebrew?
***
I tend to think that the word "original" is loaded with much danger.
How far back does that "original" pronunciation go back (when measured in 
k-years BC for example)?
A.
***


Recorded history (assuming the Bible gives accurate history) indicates that 
the Hebrews used the alphabet before the Phoenicians,
***
Ah.
I must say I do not believe a word of that claim.
What supports it?
A.
***


therefore the 22 letter alphabet accurately described the 22 consonantal 
phonemes that the ancient Hebrews recognized.
***
You have an unusual and sturdy sense of humor, don't you?
What about Greek ba-ls-am = whatever dialect ba[sin]am?
What's the accurate letter for that phoneme, mein lieber Freund?
A.
***


Secondly I have floated a trial balloon, was the alphabet originally a 
syllabary, with each consonant followed by a vowel? And that it was changed 
to an alphabet by dropping unstressed vowels, even changing some of the 
consonants to materes lectionis by the same practice?
***
This sounds like carpet-bombing the issue with a whole mine-field of Pandora 
boxes.
I'm not sure this is the last post...
A.
***


While Blau, as I understand Garth’s summary of his ideas, doesn’t seem to go 
as far as I, he does seem to touch on some of the same ideas. I was hoping 
to discuss these ideas further.

I did not expect this discussion to morph to a discussion of scientific 
method (scientists describe it in their textbooks, and that’s enough for me) 
nor a defense of grammar as a description of observed linguistic patterns 
(interesting you should mention Chinese—I speak Chinese, and I have read 
grammars that don’t sound at all like the Chinese I hear spoken on the 
street). I am willing to discuss these ideas more off list, but I agree with 
the moderators that these ideas are not really germane to this thread.
***
ok
Let's put that back on the slow-burner.
A.
***


In closing, I would like to discuss Blau’s theories more, but if we do, can 
we keep it on topic?
Karl W. Randolph.
***
Erh,
What did you mean to "close"?

Arnaud Fournet
***