Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Garth Grenache" <garthgrenache AT hotmail.com>
To: "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>; "b-hebrew" 
<b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2010 9:04 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Blau's explanation for how ultimate stress became in 
Hebrew




Garth> It is from ProtoSemitic/ProtoHebrew to the Tiberian vocalised 
Biblical Hebrew that Blau is showing development. Karl> I was trained in 
science classes to disregard any claims based on that which is not 
observable. Neither ProtoSemitic nor ProtoHebrew have been observed, but are 
built up based on models that may or may not be correct.

It is good to understand that these are models and may or may not be 
correct.  It is also good to consider the reasons proposed for these models, 
and consider what models are consistent with the facts.

ProtoSemitic is the name given to the hypothetical first Semitic language, 
and ProtoHebrew to the hypothetical first Hebrew language.  I suppose that 
there must have been a first Semitic language, and there must have been a 
first Hebrew language too.  Is there an alternative hypothesis? i.e. that 
there never was a first Semitic language?  How could it be so?
***

Anyway Proto-Semitic is clearly something that is observable. There are 
several Semitic languages and they share a number of words, vocalic schemes, 
sound correspondences, etc.
There are always two approaches of these shared features: in the most 
fictionalist approach, Proto-Semitic is just the collection of these shared 
and observable features, and nothing more. In general people don't stick to 
that hyper-negative and anti-historical definition of a proto-language. Most 
often that collection of shared and observable features is interpreted in a 
causal and historical way as being a "real" proto-language.
Now it is clear that attributing all the shared and observable features to a 
single linguistic stage may be flawed. That that collection of shared 
features is a flat screen. Some features may be shared innovations 
independently acquired and posterior to Proto-Semitic, and some other may be 
much older than Proto-Semitic. Purely internal comparison within Semitic 
cannot sort out the exact historical nature of the features.

I wrote this little paper you may find interesting:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34156784/Synopsis-of-Comparative-Linguistics

A.
***





Garth>It is said that Stage iii probably reflects Hebrew from about 1000 
B.C.E. I reckon Stage iv is probably a development in the Tiberian tradition 
of pronunciation, medieval.
Karl> When reading your explanation, I didn’t read these as different 
stages, rather i and ii were before change, and iii and iv post change.

Blau shows pretonic lengthening came between stages iii and iv.
i.e. the forms produced by the move of stress to the last syllable (stage 
iv), have propretonic lengthening instead of pretonic lengthening.
***
I find it hard to believe that an unaccented vowel could be lenghthened !?
This is unheard of.

A.
***