Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Paul Zellmer" <pzellmer AT sc.rr.com>]

That is *a* theory that exists.  Whether it “prevails” is highly 
questionable.  I’m not even sure that Isaac would raise its general 
popularity to that level.

 

Paul Zellmer

 

From: fred burlingame [mailto:tensorpath AT gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 5:14 PM
To: Paul Zellmer
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] language level

 

Hello Paul:

 

Thanks for your informative comments.

 

I understand the following theory prevails at this time in academia, though 
with the usual and customary dissent. The alphabet and its language(s), 
rather than experiencing an event of creation, arose by gradual evolution 
from the hieroglyph and its language(s) over centuries 2000-1000 b.c.

 

http://www.bib-arch.org/scholars-study/alphabet.asp

 

http://www.bib-arch.org/bar/article.asp?PubID=BSBA 
<http://www.bib-arch.org/bar/article.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=36&Issue=02&ArticleID=6>
 &Volume=36&Issue=02&ArticleID=6

 

Hence:

 

a. the one to one correspondence between hieroglyph and word;

 

b. gradually moved to single alphabet letter one to one correspondence with a 
word; 

 

c. and thence, to two alphabet letters correspondence to a single word; 

 

d. and thence, to three alphabet letters correspondence to a single word.

 

The two letter parent root in this instance חל (chet, lamed) birthed 2, three 
letter child roots, 

 

i. the one by adding י (yod) or ו (waw) between the two consonants;

 

ii. the other by repeating ל (lamed).

 

And so, the question persists; what is the tie that binds the two child roots 
to the parent? What meaning of the parent is common to the two children?

 

regards,

 

fred burlingame


 

On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Paul Zellmer <pzellmer AT sc.rr.com> wrote:

Fred,

While the parts of the two roots remaining in the forms found in the verse 
are identical, "two letter consonantal root(s)" are basically non-existent in 
Hebrew.  And there are several ways in which trilateral roots reduce to 
biliteral representations.

The traditional roots for these specific occurrences, the ones resulting in 
our current translations, are חלל (the same root as the nominal form תחלה - 
beginning, first) and חיל (from חול).  If, as I personally believe based on 
the context, these identifications are correct, then the answers to your 
musings would be: 1) the author did not grasp at all to choose these words.  
They were words normally used to express the thoughts expressed in the verse. 
 That their surface representations were similar is merely accidental.  2) 
the two remaining root letters come neither from there being a common root or 
an illusion.  They result from two different phonological processes in the 
language.  3) The two words have different meanings, and their roots have 
different meanings.

If you wish to posit that the two come from a single root, you are welcome to 
do so.  However, the burden then lies on your shoulders to defend what that 
root is (remember--triliteral) and what it means.  To present options of 
alternate roots is an acceptable scholarly exercise, but it is normal to 
demonstrate how the changing the roots also change the meaning of the verse.

Paul Zellmer