Biblical Hebrew Forum

[fred burlingame <tensorpath AT gmail.com>]

Hello Paul:

Perhaps as this author suggests and implies, the following scenario
occurred.
https://www.bib-arch.org/press-alphabet.asp

a. spoken language develops completely;

b. millennia later, alphabet develops to correspond to spoken language.

c. alphabet writing system however, evolves slowly rather than appearing at
one moment, complete.

d. the process begins with one alphabet letter to correspond to one sound
and one word;

e. the process of alphabet writing system evolution continues, with more
letters and combinations of letters, until three letter words arise, which
in turn encode three sounds, and one word per three letter root.
regards,

fred burlingame


On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 7:21 AM, Paul Zellmer <pzellmer AT sc.rr.com> wrote:

>  Why tri-phonemic?  Because the written text is a descriptive
> representation of the vocalization of the oral text, and analysis has
> indicated that the language used trilateral roots.
>
> For Isaac’s proposal, which you seem to be wanting to adopt, to be a true
> description of the development, the forebears of the Hebrews would have had
> to thrown out all their previous spoken communication forms and started
> building the language from scratch.  Even if they had done this, the
> language that they started with would not have been Hebrew—it would have
> been something that eventually developed into Hebrew.  It is an interesting
> proposal and may shed some light on why some roots are related.  It also
> would appear to make Hebrew (and the other Semitic languages?) unique, as I
> have never seen anyone propose such a correlation between phonemes and
> meaning for other language families.  But it is **not** describing the
> language that we know as Hebrew, it is describing a forebear to Hebrew.
> Again, the language that we know as Hebrew has triliteral roots.
>
> As for your reconstitution statement, the core words were not changed.
> Grammar was, adopting more of an Indo-European flavor, but the base
> vocabulary remained.  Did pronunciation differ from the original?  Perhaps,
> but that would be in the vowels and perhaps idiomatic pronunciation of
> certain consonants.  Nothing occurred that would have changed the number of
> letter/consonantal phonemes in the roots.
>
> Paul Zellmer
>
>
>
> *From:* fred burlingame [mailto:tensorpath AT gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, January 30, 2011 12:40 AM
>
> *To:* Paul Zellmer
> *Cc:* b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> *Subject:* Re: [b-hebrew] language level
>
>
>
> 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
>