Hello Isaac,
Your letter was missed in my overzealous spam filter, sorry for late reply.
I cannot imagine Hebrew grammarians just introduced an alternative samech out of thin air. Note that the Masoretes always use a dot consistently as some kind of stop. You also have a shibbolet/ sibbolet problem: it is clear than shin/sin is just a phonetic variation. I can see the shin/sin difference clearly from the Russian pronunciation of [sh] which can be both very soft, sin- like, and hard.
Vadim Cherny
Isaac Fried wrote:
Vadim,
It is indeed worthwhile giving the Hebrew dagesh problem a fresh, unbiased and unfettered consideration, free of past dogmatic encumbrances.
It is possible that sin evolved from shin by some dialectical pronunciation differences, but I tend to think it is rather an intentionally introduced visual discriminatory device --- the editor needed an extra letter in the D, Z, T, Y, S, C, $, T group. The name SARAH, for example, with a sin LOOKS good because it calls to mind SAR, 'nobleman', but it obviously looks bad with a samek. Isaiah plays on this in 1:23, saying
שָׂרַיִךְ סוֹרְרִים
" Your princes are rebels ".
Occasionally this interchange is accompanied by an interchange of the filler letters, for example, SB), 'drink to excess', and SB(, 'eat one's fill'.
Isaac Fried, Boston University
On May 8, 2008, at 5:59 AM, Vadim Cherny wrote:
Dear all,
As some of you might remember from the previous discussions on this
list, I advocate the theory that dagesh (both kal and hazak) is a stop.
Specifically, dagesh hazak is a post-tonic geminative stop, and dagesh
kal is interconsonantal stop meant to force syllabification. Both
dageshes are designed to prevent jamming: hazak prevents jamming of the
post-tonic vowel (mitlAb'sh - mitlA.bbesh) and kal prevents jamming of
first consonant in the cluster (ni-zcar - ni-'car, but niz.car).
With that in mind, I'd venture an explanation for shin-sin difference
which I haven't seen before. Dot in shin-sin functions like soft- hard
signs in Russian. A {she} syllable, for example, would be pronounced
with the soft sign like sh[ee]. The point is, shin and sin is the same
letter, the difference being purely environmental.
Sameh, then, is [s] while sin is softened [sh]. It is possible that in
some words with harsh meaning sameh evolved into sin due to hard
pronunciation (e.g., savah with sameh - svah, bars, with sin).
I'd like to welcome your opinions.
Vadim Cherny
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.