(...)
On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 08:14:32 +0100, "Arnaud Fournet" <fournet.arnaud AT wanadoo.fr> wrote:
***
> In the case of Hebrew, it's harder to judge than Greek
> both because of the much more limited evidence and the fact that the > using a
> defective method of indicating vowels could conceal major differences > in
> pronunciation.
***
If we have no indication of differences, then the best hypothesis is to
avoid positing ghost entities.
A.
***
What are these ghost entities? *I* haven't claimed anything about how
uniform Hebrew was in Biblical times. But if you're suggesting something
along the lines of: "We don't have clear evidence of major dialectal
differences in Biblical times, therefore none existed", well, that's a
fallaceous argument.
>>
>> So I suppose it must have been an affricate in the original >> proto-Semitic
>> (and before).
>> A.
>> ***
>
> We've covered this before in another thread. Rendering X in language A > by Y
> in language B doesn't prove that X is pronounced Y in A if B doesn't > have
> an equivalent to X. So, no "doubtless an affricate", &c. Making > dogmatic
> statements about details of Akkadian phonology (let alone > Proto-Semitic!) is
> simply not justified.
> William Parsons
****You* are the one making dogmatic statements. I am merely pointing out that
I consider this point of view to be definitely dogmatic and possibly even
sterile.
Arnaud Fournet
your arguments claiming "proof" are fallaceous.
William Parsons
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.