***
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 07:41:47 +0200, "Arnaud Fournet" <fournet.arnaud AT wanadoo.fr> wrote:
Needless to say that I consider the approach of Saenz-Badillos (A History of
the Hebrew Language) to be complete nonsense and not far from
antiscientific. There is an overwhelming body of data that shows that
approach to be completely wrong.
I'm not familiar with Saenz-Badillos; what's his(?) approach?
******
I do not see why it is uncertain.
That occurence is certain!? even if it may be isolated.
*You* may think it is certain, but *I* don't have access to a facsimile of
Codex Vaticanus so that I can judge for myself, and the sigla of the edition
of the LXX in my possession contradict that reading. To me, that makes it
uncertain.
***
Anyway, I think we both have reached the point where we're not bringing
anything new into the argument, so I don't intend to carry on in this thread.
Before closing,
I would like to point out one last time that even if the***
reading you like can be verified, it *still* doesn't follow that it would
necessarily reflect a Hebrew pronuncation of [tsade]. If you think that it
would, ask yourself if you are prepared to argue that Hebrew shin was
pronounced [khs] on the basis of the Greek rendering of the name as khsen.
William Parsons
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.