From: "Nir cohen - Prof. Mat." <nir AT ccet.ufrn.br>
To: "Arnaud Fournet" <fournet.arnaud AT wanadoo.fr>, <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] hykl
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 21:32:24 -0300
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 22:41:12 +0100, Arnaud Fournet wrote
> From: "Nir cohen - Prof. Mat." <nir AT ccet.ufrn.br>
>
> [clip]
>
> > nir cohen
> >
> > PS...if indeed you ask my humble layman opinion, even this question
> > is not that clear cut. assume the word haigalli being invented at a
> > particular
> > plate in sumer for the first time, some 4-5K years ago, and then
> > propagating
> > to other semitic dialects, through various channels. what is the
> > probability
> > that all these other dialects (including hebrew, arabic, aramaic) would
> > introduce the same exact change, g-->k, into the word?
> ***
>
> This is not necessarily a change that happened within Semitic languages.
>
> It seems that the contrast between Sumerian g and k, corresponds to
> some extent to a contrast between k/g (weakly voiced) and kH
> (aspirated). As a consequence Sumerian g may be perceived as being
> equivalent to Semitic k rather than a really voiced g.
>
> As a rule Sumerian renders all Semitic stops as being voiceless C,
> be they voiced, voiceless and emphatic, and never as CH (aspirated).
> The apparent "change" g > k is therefore probably to be accounted
> for by the difference between the Sumerian system and the Semitic systems.
>
> Arnaud Fournet
> ***
arnaud,
i do not know for sure how these words were pronounced, in either
language. so i will stick to the way they were written. looking at
words which are similar in hebrew/arabic and sumeric,
i found no g(SUM)-->k(H) transformation except possibly one (barag-gal,
holy of holies) which is unclear since i could not find barag (holy)
in the same list. also, it is possible that the correct word was barak-gal,
and euphony changed k to g.
i don't say uri's thesis is wrong. but maybe it needs some validation.