The only Akkadian we see is a literary Akkadian, reflecting certainly
that a language resembling this written form was widely used, but we can
not deny the existence of other dialects when there are clearly
inscriptions that mention the Amurru around Babylonia/Akkad.
Little evidence I know but circumstantial will do for now.
and Abraham allying himself with them in a momentous battle,
alludes to some common understanding with them.
I agree
And EARLY aramaic had more in common with the canaanite
tongue than did later aramaic?
LABAN??? Jacob a wandering aramean?????
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.
You are right! But I am not thinking as a linguist because I am not
one.
Canaanite is a label that over simplifies the issue, People think of
canaanite and connect it with Canaan. BUT I think that it should be
explained that Canaanite could well have been spoken in the middle of
the nomadic wastelands a few hundred miles east of Ur? Canaanite
describes an Alphabet and that's it!
the speakers of Hebrew"I agree with all the above EXCEPT THIS:-that the speakers of Canaanite
were ancestors of
--- Not so! Abraham did not stem from Canaan. If however you accept
that canaanite is a broad term that WE USE TO DESIGNATE A LINGUA FRANCA
of commonly related peoples and NOT confined to a geographical area
then Yes!
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.
I got half way through and had to begin again and again. All thoseSo Funny this, it is his book that caused me to post this question in
the first place!!!!
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
analyser; the above statement conceals a quest for answers rather thanI am not a linguistic evidence orientated phonologically minded data
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.