1. You are right, but we don't need, methinks, no Ammonite to foresee
the possibility that once upon a time, corresponding to BEN (or
possibly even BIN), 'son', Hebrew had BIN-T, 'daughter'. I agree with
you on the fickleness of the Hebrew letter N.
2. Here our premises diverge. I believe the dagesh predates the NIKUD
by many years. The NIKUD, I believe, was done (mostly) according to
an already existing system of dgeshim.
3. There is no mystery there at all. I have never seen anything to
make me think that "Akkadian" can help us clarify anything in
biblical Hebrew, and Arabic likewise.
4. I agree with you that the Moabite Meisha inscription is nearly
"modern Israeli", and so the Ashmunezer inscription (as far as we can
separate the words).
5. Methinks that EZOB (אזוב) is a variant of ESOB (עשב), 'grass'.
Isaac Fried, Boston University
On Nov 4, 2010, at 7:23 PM, Uri Hurwitz wrote:
-- The simple answer is that the Hebrew, Phoenician,
Ammonite "BAT" originated from the earlier "BNT".
The Nun drupped out completely in the singular,
but left a pronpunciation-trace in declensions,
which existed still in the the Masoretes time. They
heard it, and marked it with a dagesh.
In the plural of original Nun remained, even in
declensions.
-- The mystery deepens: again one make assertions about
subjects with which one choses not to acquaint oneself.
Your position clearly implies that biblical Hebrew
had nothing in common with its sister NW Semitic dialects,
or the wider linguistic horizon where it was in usage.
Ezov Haqyr,
Uri Hurwitz Great Neck, NY
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
