Biblical Hebrew Forum

[James Spinti <jspinti AT eisenbrauns.com>]

Will,

You are correct about the Akkadian. B`L became a segholate in Hebrew, but in 
Akkadian took a different route--both of which resulted in the normal vowel 
patterns in their respective languages. Thanks for correcting me.

James
________________________________
James Spinti
E-mail marketing, Book Sales Division
Eisenbrauns, Good books for more than 35 years
Specializing in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Studies
jspinti at eisenbrauns dot com
Web: http://www.eisenbrauns.com
Phone: 260-445-3118
Fax: 574-269-6788

On Aug 7, 2012, at 6:39 PM, Will Parsons wrote:

> On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 16:05:23 -0500, James Spinti <jspinti AT eisenbrauns.com> 
> wrote:
>> Philip,
>> 
>> It is related to Bel in that the Akkadian dropped the Ayin over time
>> and the two vowels reduced to an e sound. Babel is from an entirely
>> different root.
> 
> I would make a slight amendment - The Akkadian form /bel/ is not the
> result of a contraction from *baal, but is the normal reflex of an
> earlier *ba`l, with the Akkadian /e/ vowel the normal result of an /a/
> being coloured by the lost /`/ consonant.  The hypothetical form *ba`l
> would regularly result in the Hebrew /ba`al/ (note the mil`el accent).
> 
> I have to admit, I find it hard to see why on a phonetic basis a /`/
> (`ayin, assumed to be realized phonetically as the pharyngeal [$(Q*~])
> would colour a neighbouring [a] sound to [e], but that seems to be the
> pattern in Akkadian.
> 
>> On Aug 7, 2012, at 3:18 PM, Philip Hardy wrote:
>> 
>>> Is word Baal related to Babel or Bel?
> 
> -- 
> William Parsons
> μη φαινεσθαι, αλλ' ειναι.