ShLM Samuel Gyamfi Please find a link to a copy of Learn to Read Biblical Hebrew
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/bookstore/e-books/lbh.pdf This will help you get started Rich AHRC --- In [email protected], Shmouel <samuel_abet...@...> wrote: > > > Dear Rollin and All, >                            Please Rollin I wrote > you privately recently . I did not get any reply. I still reply upon it > coming,though, I will like to ask members here too. > > Shlama! Fellow Hebrews and students of Torah, I humble request your > assistance in an effort to support a small study group here Ghana. I will be > glad if you who can help me with a beginner book--for Hebrew language. A > book like Teach yourself Hebrew. > > I live in seclusion. I am trying to fellowship with some friends,and they are > interested IN studyING basic Hebrew together with me. And I will like to help > them. Its seems their interest in the group is high and the group's face is > lifted when we dig into Hebrew Discovery Learning. Please kindly help us. > > I will be glad to hear from you. > > samuel_abet...@... > > Sincerely, > Samuel Gyamfi > > > --- On Tue, 18/5/10, Rollin Shultz <rollinshu...@...> wrote: > > From: Rollin Shultz <rollinshu...@...> > Subject: Re: [ancient_hebrew] Re: Edenics, Ugaritic & Arabic > To: [email protected] > Date: Tuesday, 18 May, 2010, 20:09 > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > Assalamu alaikum Abu > Your welcome and my thanks to you as well. >  > I do not know how qualified I am to answer your questions as I am only a > student of Hebrew for about 14 weeks and only know a litttle of Arabic picked > up from Syrian friends and Persian music. By your name I would say by birth > you are closer to the se languages than I and as such have a decided > advantage. >  > I do not see anything to convince me of Hebrew or Ugaritic phonemes and how > anyone can do anything but guess at them especially in the case of the > cuneifornm Ugaritic. In the case of Arabic I will asssume the knowedge comes > from an unbroken usage through the last 3,000 years history. I think much > could be borrowed then from Arabic in the case of Hebrew to come up with > Hebrew phonemes but I still think it is guesswork. > "Also you completely left off addressing the issue of phonology. Hebrew > phonology is very different from the original Semitic phonology, and has lost > in all about 7 different letters from it's repertoire. An interesting point > is that the exact same merges which occur in Hebrew, Aramaic etc. can be seen > in spoken vernaculars of some Arabic countries today. thaa is merged into sin > or taa and thal is merged into dal or zayin (as in Aramaic and Hebrew > respectively) ." >  > My answer to this statement is:"Another thing to keep in mind is that Arabs, > even the non-Ishmaelite ones were descendants of Eber as well, so technically > they were "Hebrews" as well if we are to accept that etymology of the word. > Although in my opinion the word Hebrew does not come from this person's name, > but from the verb in both Arabic and Hebrew (and most other Semitic > languages) ayin-baa-raa which means to "cross over". As the Hebrews were the > desert nomads (Arabs if you will) that "crossed over" into Canaan/Egypt and > settled there, out of the original bedouin homeland of the Semitic peoples in > the Arabian peninsula." > > I am unconvinced the name Hebrew comes from the lengthening of the name Eber. > Its first mention in the Torah is after Abraham moves to the valley of the > Oaks of Mamre and establishes or absorbs the city of Hebron. It is more > likely surrounding residents tagged them as Hebrews for living in Hebron > than anything else. >  > Since I am just starting out on the semitic language path I have much > catching up to do. I will always just as in the hard physical sciences use > the Torah as my "frame of reference". I did have a problem many years ago > with the creation account of the earth being created in six days but I tried > to look at it different ways for different possibilities and ended up > shelving it for future reference. hen science caught up and it was proven how > the 15.8 billion year old universe was most likely created in six days > through the implementation of Einsteins's theories of space time. All > knowledge we need is in the Torah, yet we tend to ignore it for many years > until one day science catches up and then we say Ohh. I think if many of our > ancestors had consulted the Torah in the building of the nations we could > have skipped the industrial age and made the world a much safer place. >  > Toda, >  >  Rollin Shultz > Mechanical designer > > Allentown, Pa 18104 > > > > Motto: Ask for help when needed, help others when asked, and remember where > you came from. > > > Happy moments, PRAISE GOD, Difficult moments, SEEK GOD, Quiet moments, > WORSHIP GOD, Painful moments, TRUST GOD, Every moment, THANK GOD > > > > > > > From: abur1924 <abur1...@yahoo. com.au> > To: ancient_hebrew@ yahoogroups. com > Sent: Mon, May 17, 2010 6:58:57 PM > Subject: [ancient_hebrew] Re: Edenics, Ugaritic & Arabic > >  > > Rollin Thanks for your reply. > > Generally languages do not add things like case systems. Also the fact the > case system exists in Arabic and Akkadian and Ugaritic and remnants of it > exist in the other Semitic languages tends to indicate strongly it was a > feature which was slowly worn down and discarded within the languages that no > longer have it. I don't think there's a single case of a language just > spontaneously forming a case system. It's something which is intrinsic within > the language, and which would be very difficult to integrate at a later date. > And it's not even necessary for language, so generally languages do not > create features that they don't need, when they got by fine without them > before. It's for this reason that I also believe that language is God given, > since the complexity within it could not have just evolved out of grunts and > snorts as the evolutionists would have us believe. I also think it's most > likely the Semitic languages > were the original languages too, but Hebrew simply isn't the pristine form > of a Semitic language, no matter how you look at it. It is far from it. > > Also you completely left off addressing the issue of phonology. Hebrew > phonology is very different from the original Semitic phonology, and has lost > in all about 7 different letters from it's repertoire. An interesting point > is that the exact same merges which occur in Hebrew, Aramaic etc. can be seen > in spoken vernaculars of some Arabic countries today. thaa is merged into sin > or taa and thal is merged into dal or zayin (as in Aramaic and Hebrew > respectively) . > > A big problem for those who consider Hebrew the original language or even > original Semitic language is that once Ugaritic was discovered, the evidence > was overwhelming and now corroborated, even though many Semitists already > realised Arabic was much more conservative long before then anyway. Since > Ugaritic agreed completely phonetically > with Arabic, yet the two languages are quite distinct. Ugaritic shares much > more in common with Hebrew as far as vocabulary and language style go, yet > phonetically and grammatically it contains the almost the exact same range of > letters and grammatical complexity we see in Arabic. Since the two languages > were so far apart in time and distance, the only possible explanation is that > they both retained close to the full set of Semitic sounds. Sabaean (Sheba) > and other southern Semitic languages also confirm these findings. We also > have the early Greek translations of the Tanakh, which tranlsliterate some > words with the original sounds, exactly as they appear in Arabic and > Ugaritic. For instance, in Hebrew ghayin and ayin have merged, yet at the > time of the early Greek translations they must've still been pronounced > separately, since the Greek transliteration of words containing the ghayin > phoneme in Arabic and Ugaritic, render it as gh from Hebrew as > well. > > Another thing to keep in mind is that Arabs, even the non-Ishmaelite ones > were descendants of Eber as well, so technically they were "Hebrews" as well > if we are to accept that etymology of the word. Although in my opinion the > word Hebrew does not come from this person's name, but from the verb in both > Arabic and Hebrew (and most other Semitic languages) ayin-baa-raa which means > to "cross over". As the Hebrews were the desert nomads (Arabs if you will) > that "crossed over" into Canaan/Egypt and settled there, out of the original > bedouin homeland of the Semitic peoples in the Arabian peninsula. > > Regards, > Abu Rashid. > > > > abic >
