... How did Hebrews know toAnother example is TLTH for three.
pronounce their word for "bull" shor rather than sor, when the Aramaic
is tor? But shor fits the reconstruction from the common ancestor. And
that's a quick example from memory.
> ...
>> $GG / &GG
>>
>
> &GG is not attested to in Tanakh that I could find.
>
>
I have &GG listed as the root of תְּשַׂגְשֵׂגִי T.:&AG:&"GIY in Isaiah 17:11.
My
list is based on the Westminster parsing database.
>> $GH / &GH
>>
>
> &GH looks like a variant on &G), a final aleph and hey are sometimes mixed.
>
>
Nevertheless I have it listed as the root used in Job 8:7,11; Psalm
73:12; 92:13.
>> $WR / &WR
>>
>
> &WR not attested to
>
>
For this one I have two homonyms listed, each a hapax, "contend" at
Hosea 9:12 and "saw" at 1 Chronicles 20:3.
>>...
>> $KK / &KK
>>
>
> &KK not attested to in Tanakh
>
>
This one is listed as a variant of SKK in Exodus 33:22.
>> $N) / &N)
>>
>
> $N) not attest to in Tanakh
>
>
This is a variant of $NH in Lamentations 4:1 and Ecclesiastes 8:1.
>> $(R, $A(AR / &(R, &A(AR
>>
>
> $(R root not attested to in Tanakh, the noun could be a loan word,
>
>
Proverbs 23:7.
...
>
> If you include samekh as having the same pronunciation as sin, they
> are not that uncommon.
>
I don't. Well, by late biblical times samekh and sin had the same
pronunciation, and consider also the shibboleth incident, but in earlier
times they were distinct letters, with sin very likely being a lateral
fricative (like Welsh "ll"). This explains why Hebrew Kasdim (with sin)
is English Chaldeans - in Akkadian I think this letter was sometimes
transcribed as "s" and sometimes as "l".
...
> I'll admit that some of the "can't" is attitudinal, but it still
> results in a can't.
>
>
Not to people whose job is to change attitudes, which in fact should be
part of any good teacher's job.
...The final point is not pointing to history, as we don't have a paper
> I still think that a lot of the speculation concerning linguistic
> history is irrelevant to the study of Biblical Hebrew, because
> ultimately we deal with the text as we have it. The language history
> won't change what we have.
>
>
Yes, maybe you are right here. But I think it can help us with
explaining some obscure words, and perhaps in finding obscure homonyms.
--
Peter Kirk
E-mail: peter AT qaya.org
Blog: http://speakertruth.blogspot.com/
Website: http://www.qaya.org/
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.