Biblical Hebrew Forum

[David Kolinsky <hadeesh AT sbcglobal.net>]

Karl,
I am not convinced that the Sin and the Shin were pronounced the same in Biblical times.  Clearly the same written letter was used and the two different sounds were considered to be similar enough that they didn't feel the need for an additional letter.  But there is reasonable evidence that the letter for Het was used for two different sounds (Het and Chet) and that the letter for Ayin (Ayin and Gayin) also (ex: Gamorra and Gaza).  I believe that the Shin probably was for "Sh" and that when it was pronounced Sin that that was very similar to a voiceless alveolar lateral fricative.

Curious, what is the evidence that the Samekh was like an "X"?

David Kolinsky
Monterey, CA

---

From: K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
To: David Kolinsky <hadeesh AT sbcglobal.net>
Cc: B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Mon, December 3, 2012 1:38:30 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Fw: Job 38:8 ??

David:

On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 1:04 PM, David Kolinsky <hadeesh AT sbcglobal.net> wrote:

alveolar lateral fricative

I’m familiar with this sound from both Apache and Toisan languages.

But seeing during Biblical times the Sin and Shin were one and the same letter, with the same pronunciation, are you claiming that the Shin was also a voiceless alveolar lateral fricative?

Incidentally, I’ve seen evidence that Samek originally had the same sound as English “X”. So that other than dialectal differences, would it be rather unusual for the Sin and Samek to be confused? (During Mishnaic times it appears they had the same sound.)

Karl W. Randolph.