Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Piel Participles of ayin-waw-yod

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, randallbuth AT gmail.com
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Piel Participles of ayin-waw-yod
  • Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 08:14:32 +0100


----- Original Message ----- From: "Will Parsons" <wbparsons AT alum.mit.edu>


The point was not that Hebrew wasn't spoken over a compact area, but that a
small area doesn't preclude there being significant dialectal differences.
One can point to numerous examples of "small" languages where there are (or
were) significant differences in dialect from village to village.
***
yes,
and we can point to numerous examples where there are little differences over large areas.
So your argument is just irrelevant.
A.
***


Much more
important than physical area is the mobility of the population. Greek became
*less* differentiated dialectally as it expanded outward in the wake of
Alexander's conquests.
***
It became less differentiated because there was a political and cultural unification under way.
Again this argument is irrelevant.
A.
***


In the case of Hebrew, it's harder to judge than Greek
both because of the much more limited evidence and the fact that the using a
defective method of indicating vowels could conceal major differences in
pronunciation.
***
If we have no indication of differences, then the best hypothesis is to avoid positing ghost entities.
A.
***



***
Akkadian tsade and tsade cuneiform signs are doubtless an affricate as it is
rendered as affricates in other languages, which have the distinction
affricate / non affricate.

Cuneiform S was probably just s
Cuneiform s, z and s. are affricates.

So I suppose it must have been an affricate in the original proto-Semitic
(and before).
A.
***

We've covered this before in another thread. Rendering X in language A by Y
in language B doesn't prove that X is pronounced Y in A if B doesn't have
an equivalent to X. So, no "doubtless an affricate", &c. Making dogmatic
statements about details of Akkadian phonology (let alone Proto-Semitic!) is
simply not justified.
William Parsons
***
I consider this point of view to be definitely dogmatic and possibly even sterile.

Arnaud Fournet






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page