Karl,
Something that has puzzled me for a while: what evidence do you have
that Hebrew - or any other ancient language - had a one-to-one
correspondence between letter and sound? Does not the evidence from
most languages point the other way?
Kevin Riley
On 17/11/2010 10:12 AM, K Randolph wrote:
Uri:
Another question, how quickly did the pronunciation of Hebrew change during
and after the Babylon Exile? Is not evidence from immigrant children as they
speak their parents’ languages a clue?
That clue indicates that a major change in pronunciation occurred in the
first couple of generations after Hebrew ceased to be the primary language
among those who speak it. That would explain the split between the sin and
shin, for example, when evidence from the text is that they were one letter
before the Exile.
This clue indicates that that early change occurred long before any
transliteration surviving from any language.
Karl W. Randolph.
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 8:31 PM, Uri Hurwitz<[email protected]> wrote:
Besides Greek evidence, one should also check
the Arabic. Now, although in that case we are
looking at written material which is many centuries
later than the Greek, it nevertheless retains Semitic
elements which are far earlier than both
the Heb. or the LXX.
Shlomo is known in Arabic is 'Suleiman'. The '-an'
ending may be borrowed from the Greek, but may as well
be an original pronounciation or spelling of the name.
Comparewith the biblical name 'Naaman', for instance.
As for the Heb. letter Shin, which becomes Sin in Arabic,
that again may go back to early pronounciation, since
unlike Greek, in Arabic like the Hebrew, both 'Shin'
and 'Sin' exist.
A further illustration is the biblical noun 'Shemesh'
(sun); in Arabic it is 'Shams' -- compare the last
consonant in the two languages. One may ask, what
relevance does it have to the MT prononciation. However,
a brief glance at the declensions of other biblical Segolate
nouns like Melekh, such as Malki, etc. clearly shows
that they maintained an earlier pronounciation which is
preserved in the Arabic.
The original question is valid; answers can be only tentative
becuase of the complexities. To give just one example:
to what extent does tha MT represent earlier pronounciations,
and if it does, even partially as can be argued,
from what periods?
Uri Hurwitz Great Neck, NY
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
