Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Kevin Riley <klriley AT alphalink.com.au>]

Karl,

Something that has puzzled me for a while: what evidence do you have 
that Hebrew - or any other ancient language - had a one-to-one 
correspondence between letter and sound?  Does not the evidence from 
most languages point the other way?

Kevin Riley

On 17/11/2010 10:12 AM, K Randolph wrote:
> Uri:
>
> Another question, how quickly did the pronunciation of Hebrew change during
> and after the Babylon Exile? Is not evidence from immigrant children as they
> speak their parents’ languages a clue?
>
> That clue indicates that a major change in pronunciation occurred in the
> first couple of generations after Hebrew ceased to be the primary language
> among those who speak it. That would explain the split between the sin and
> shin, for example, when evidence from the text is that they were one letter
> before the Exile.
>
> This clue indicates that that early change occurred long before any
> transliteration surviving from any language.
>
> Karl W. Randolph.
>
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 8:31 PM, Uri Hurwitz<uhurwitz AT yahoo.com>  wrote:
>
> >     Besides Greek evidence, one should also check
> >    the Arabic. Now, although in that case we are
> >   looking at written material which is many centuries
> >   later than the Greek, it nevertheless retains Semitic
> >   elements which are far earlier than both
> >   the Heb. or the LXX.
> >
> >    Shlomo is known in Arabic is 'Suleiman'. The '-an'
> >   ending may be borrowed from the Greek, but may as well
> >   be an original pronounciation or spelling of the name.
> > Comparewith the biblical name 'Naaman', for instance.
> >   As for the Heb. letter Shin, which becomes Sin in Arabic,
> >   that again may go back to early pronounciation, since
> >   unlike Greek, in Arabic like the Hebrew, both 'Shin'
> >   and 'Sin' exist.
> >
> >    A further illustration is the biblical noun 'Shemesh'
> >   (sun); in Arabic it is 'Shams' -- compare the last
> >   consonant in the two languages. One may ask, what
> >   relevance does it have to the MT prononciation. However,
> >   a brief glance at the declensions of other biblical Segolate
> >   nouns like Melekh, such as Malki, etc. clearly shows
> >   that they maintained an earlier pronounciation which is
> >   preserved in the Arabic.
> >
> >   The original question is valid; answers can be only tentative
> > becuase of the complexities. To give just one example:
> > to what extent does tha MT represent earlier pronounciations,
> > and if it does, even partially as can be argued,
> >   from what periods?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >      Uri Hurwitz                              Great Neck, NY
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew