b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum
List archive
- 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: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 07:28:39 +0100
From: "Will Parsons" <wbparsons AT alum.mit.edu>
(...)
On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 08:14:32 +0100, "Arnaud Fournet" <fournet.arnaud AT wanadoo.fr> wrote:
***
> 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.
***
What are these ghost entities? *I* haven't claimed anything about how
uniform Hebrew was in Biblical times. But if you're suggesting something
along the lines of: "We don't have clear evidence of major dialectal
differences in Biblical times, therefore none existed", well, that's a
fallaceous argument.
ok
so it's a kind of polemics.
You wrote: "using a defective method of indicating vowels could conceal major differences in pronunciation."
This is a claim, right?
You then wrote: "*I* haven't claimed anything about how uniform Hebrew was in Biblical times."
=> contradiction?
A.
***
(...)
>>
>> 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
****You* are the one making dogmatic statements. I am merely pointing out that
I consider this point of view to be definitely dogmatic and possibly even
sterile.
Arnaud Fournet
your arguments claiming "proof" are fallaceous.
William Parsons
***
well, again:
you wrote: "Rendering X in language A by Y in language B doesn't prove [sic] that X is pronounced Y in A if B doesn't have an equivalent to X."
Is this not a dogmatic statement about what should or should not be?
The observation that Cuneiform s and z are in fact affricates is standard knowledge in the study of Anatolian IE languages and Hurro-Urartian.
For example:
A Grammar of the Hittite Language
Part 1
Reference Grammar
by
Harry A. Hoffner, Jr.
The University of Chicago
and
H. Craig Melchert
The University of California, Los Angeles
Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbraun 2008
P37:
Affricates
1.90. The cuneiform signs conventionally transcribed as containing a z represent a sound (or sounds) with three distinct sources in Hittite. (1) Some cases reflect a sequence /t+s/: the sg. nom. of the common gender t-stem aniyatt- /aniyat-s/ is spelled a-ni-ya-az vs. sg. gen. a-ni-ya-at-ta-aš.67 (2) In other cases it represents the affricate /ts/ resulting from the dissimilation of a dental stop before another dental stop (see §1.125, p. 44): imp. sg. 3 /e:tstu/ ‘let him eat’ is spelled e-ez(-za)-du. (3) In still others it represents the sound resulting from prehistoric assibilation of *ty and *ti: suffix -zziya- < *-tyo- in ḫa-an-te-ez-zi-ya- ‘front, first’ (see §2.53, p. 61) and pres. sg. 3 ending -zzi < *-ti in e-ep-zi ‘takes’ etc. ****The first two sources suggest that z stands for a voiceless dental affricate /ts/, and we follow most Hittitologists in adopting this value.***
Note 67
That z is representing an affricate /ts/ here is confirmed by the fact that in those cases in clitic sequences
when /-t+s-/ becomes /-ss-/ and the dental stop is lost, the z-containing signs are not used
***
I must say that I fully agree with this approach, which is confirmed by a mountain of convergent and independent data and features coming from a large number of languages.
I don't know what is at stake in your rejection of the obvious,
but in all cases I'm certainly not dogmatic and certainly not making fallacious claims.
Arnaud Fournet
-
Re: [b-hebrew] Piel Participles of ayin-waw-yod
, (continued)
-
Re: [b-hebrew] Piel Participles of ayin-waw-yod,
Randall Buth, 11/01/2010
- Re: [b-hebrew] Piel Participles of ayin-waw-yod, Arnaud Fournet, 11/02/2010
-
Re: [b-hebrew] Piel Participles of ayin-waw-yod,
Will Parsons, 11/01/2010
-
Re: [b-hebrew] Piel Participles of ayin-waw-yod,
Arnaud Fournet, 11/02/2010
- Re: [b-hebrew] Piel Participles of ayin-waw-yod, Kevin Riley, 11/02/2010
-
Re: [b-hebrew] Piel Participles of ayin-waw-yod,
Will Parsons, 11/02/2010
- Re: [b-hebrew] Piel Participles of ayin-waw-yod, Isaac Fried, 11/02/2010
-
Re: [b-hebrew] Piel Participles of ayin-waw-yod,
Arnaud Fournet, 11/03/2010
- Re: [b-hebrew] Piel Participles of ayin-waw-yod, Will Parsons, 11/03/2010
- [b-hebrew] Piel Participles of ayin-waw-yod - END OF THREAD, George Athas, 11/03/2010
- Re: [b-hebrew] Piel Participles of ayin-waw-yod, Arnaud Fournet, 11/04/2010
-
Re: [b-hebrew] Piel Participles of ayin-waw-yod,
Arnaud Fournet, 11/02/2010
-
Re: [b-hebrew] Piel Participles of ayin-waw-yod,
Randall Buth, 11/01/2010
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.