Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Nir cohen - Prof. Mat." <nir AT ccet.ufrn.br>]

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 22:41:12 +0100, Arnaud Fournet wrote
> From: "Nir cohen - Prof. Mat." <nir AT ccet.ufrn.br>
> 
> [clip]
> 
> > nir cohen
> >
> > PS...if indeed you ask my humble layman opinion, even this question
> > is not that clear cut. assume the word haigalli being invented at a 
> > particular
> > plate in sumer for the first time, some 4-5K years ago, and then 
> > propagating
> > to other semitic dialects, through various channels. what is the 
> > probability
> > that all these other dialects (including hebrew, arabic, aramaic) would
> > introduce the same exact change, g-->k, into the word?
> ***
> 
> This is not necessarily a change that happened within Semitic languages.
> 
> It seems that the contrast between Sumerian g and k, corresponds to 
> some extent to a contrast between k/g (weakly voiced) and kH 
> (aspirated). As a consequence Sumerian g may be perceived as being 
> equivalent to Semitic k rather than a really voiced g.
> 
> As a rule Sumerian renders all Semitic stops as being voiceless C, 
> be they voiced, voiceless and emphatic, and never as CH (aspirated). 
> The apparent "change" g > k is therefore probably to be accounted 
> for by the difference between the Sumerian system and the Semitic systems.
> 
> Arnaud Fournet
> ***

arnaud,

i do not know for sure how these words were pronounced, in either 
language. so i will stick to the way they were written. looking at 
words which are similar in hebrew/arabic and sumeric,

www.ping.de/sites/systemcoder/necro/info/sumerian.htm

my conclusion is that the G/K/Q distinction is identical:

*** pagru (body), igisum (gift), genii (ghosts, arabic jin), negeltu (awake),
metal (zag, as in H. sag?), agaru (hire, see arabic, ajar and H agar),  

*** kalu (confine), alaku (go), kalbi (dog), kabitu (heavy), kappu (wing),
    rakbu (messenger), zakaru (remind, see oath)

*** nasaqu (kiss), baraqu (lightning), qerebu (near), lequ (take).

i found no g(SUM)-->k(H) transformation except possibly one (barag-gal, 
holy of holies) which is unclear since i could not find barag (holy) 
in the same list. also, it is possible that the correct word was barak-gal,
and euphony changed k to g.

i don't say uri's thesis is wrong. but maybe it needs some validation.
 
regards
nir