Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Having worked in a field which includes reducing to writing languages which
were previously only oral, I can find no example where the written language
goes back to encode a previous language development prior to encoding the
current one.  In fact, without some recording device, that scenario would be
impossible.

 

Paul Zellmer

 

From: fred burlingame [mailto:tensorpath AT gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 12:18 PM
To: Paul Zellmer
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] language level

 

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