Dear Kevin Riley:Phonemes are theoretical constructs defined by linguists. If you are going to use such constructs, I suggest that you do so in the ways that linguists use them, and so don't reject as you do the work of professional linguists on comparative Semitic languages.
Your letter reminds me why I almost always use “phoneme” instead of “phone”.
For example, in English, the voiced and unvoiced th, though they are different phones, represent the same phoneme. If I were to substitute an unvoiced th for every voiced one, it wouldn’t make a whit of difference in meaning.
There may have been two different pronunciations for Ayen originally, but they were the same phoneme: substituting one pronunciation for the other didn’t make a difference. The same with the Sin and the Shin.
The problem is, all of us, myself included, are only guessing how Hebrew was originally pronounced. I personally favor the view that each phoneme represented one consonantal phone, but there’s no way to prove it. However, I would be surprised if statistical analysis did not show that each letter represents one phoneme, and that includes that the Sin and Shin were originally one phoneme.
Karl W. Randolph.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.