Surely when one considers that the Amorite dialect must have
been very widely spoken (a from of Aramaic) amongst Babylonia
and around 2400-1800 in Canaan when they moved in,
and Abraham allying himself with them in a momentous battle,
alludes to some common understanding with them.
And EARLY aramaic had more in common with the canaanite
tongue than did later aramaic?
Maybe upon this there is some thought that the SPOKEN hebrew
during the Egypt years was a kind of independently forming Aramaic.
After all, Moses fled to Midian and not the place of his ancestral
beginnings in Canaan. Midian being of course of Family kindred and
similar tongue to Moses? Otherwise surely a man who was lonely
and in need of feeling secure would try to find a place where he was
most at home, both in language and belief? Which would not have
been Midian - just a thought! chris.
Canaanite origin? I personally think that that is pushing away so much
biblical literature and calling it fanciful?
The Normans did not adopt the saxon language in England and they did not
adopt the Keltoi language in Ireland either. What happened was that they
influenced the language of saxon over 200 years - the written language was
latin and the spoken was Frankish. and never took any notice of Gaelic at
all when they arrived in 1170 in Ireland. In Ireland the celtic language
was pushed to the fringes. In England they brought in the written latin and
conversed in frankish dialects and influenced the saxon language that by
1400 you see a clearly defineable new written and spoken language which by
the way was sprinkeld with old norse as well.
By all this I am not saying that Hebrew was not influenced by a canaanite
language but rather I do not see that Hebrew can spring forth from canaanite
when this language is not a uniform entity but by all accounts that I have
read it was a mixture of different tribes and migrants speaking different
dialects but mutually intelligable and quite apart from what was happening
in Goshen.
Maybe since canaanite and early aramaic had so much in common
that it is the labels we give things that cause divisions in the first place?
So maybe most of the lingual groups spoke a form of aramaic which
when divided up into smaller groups develope a unique identifiable
lingual structure, but we come along and think that one gave birth to
the other?????? Chris
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.