Biblical Hebrew Forum

[fred burlingame <tensorpath AT gmail.com>]

Hello Paul;

I am no stranger to confusion, from time to time.

I think you make a good point. The spoken language preceded the written
language. Hence, the former instructed the development & expression of the
latter in alphabet form.

My original post however, dealt only with the written form of the language.

I am also not sure why the spoken language would require three base phonemes
for a verb. Why could not a verb root enjoy both:

a. a single written letter; and

b.  a single vocalized phoneme or sound?

Your point also seems to dovetail with Isaac's comments concerning the
strong relationships amongst hebrew words via its common root(s).

And again, I am no expert ....; but when the hebrew language was
reconstituted in 19th century, did not the written language come first? So,
perhaps to suggest that vocalization always and in every instance precedes
the written expression, may not be accurate. Symbiosis may exist between the
two expressions.

regards,

fred burlingame

On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 11:13 PM, Paul Zellmer <pzellmer AT sc.rr.com> wrote:

> An addendum:
>
> You are still confusing the development of the alphabet with the
> development of the language.  You assume that the language did not exist in
> spoken form *before* it was encoded in writing.  Note that I said that two
> different *phonological* processes were taken place in the words you
> questioned.  Phonological refers to sounds, not writing.
>
> The spoken form would have had roots with three base phonemes.  That those
> phonemes later were represented by individual alphabetic characters was an
> accident of the region in which the language existed.  Had Hebrew been the
> language further east, it might have been encoded in the pictographs of
> Chinese.  But it still would have been the same language, because it is the
> vocalization that makes a language, not the way the language is represented
> on paper.
>
> Paul Zellmer
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:
> b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Paul Zellmer
> Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 11:58 PM
> To: 'fred burlingame'
> Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] language level
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
>