Biblical Hebrew Forum

[fred burlingame <tensorpath AT gmail.com>]

Hello Chavoux:

Thanks for your comments. Your clarification sounds reasonable.

I continue to marvel at the evolution, rather than the creation, of the
alphabet writing system. It may not be a big deal for anyone else, but it
sure represents a highly significant point for me.

The intermediate and hybrid (cuneiform/alphabet) ugarit writing system
speaks volumes .... to me anyhow.

regards,

fred burlingame



On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 1:59 AM, Chavoux Luyt <chavoux AT gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Fred
>
> <snip>
> > One article I originally posted, emphatically stated the creation of one
> > alphabet only, not the two track alphabets you indicated:
> >
> >
> >
> > a. nile river hieroglyphs to canaanite alphabet; and
> >
> >
> >
> > b. euphrates river cuneiform to ugaritic alphabet.
> >
> > "The alphabet was invented only once. All alphabetic scripts derive from
> > this original one, which we may call the Serabit alphabetic script."
> I think what the author probably meant was that all later/existing
> alphabets came from the Serabit/Sinaic/Proto-Canaanite alphabet. The
> Ugaritic cuneiform alphabet was a "dead end" in that it left no later
> "children" alphabets after the city was destroyed (possibly being
> supplanted by the Canaanite/Phoenician/Paleo-Hebraic alphabet).
>
> Regards
> Chavoux
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>