Will, You are correct about the Akkadian. B`L became a segholate in Hebrew, but in Akkadian took a different route--both of which resulted in the normal vowel patterns in their respective languages. Thanks for correcting me.
James ________________________________ James Spinti E-mail marketing, Book Sales Division Eisenbrauns, Good books for more than 35 years Specializing in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Studies jspinti at eisenbrauns dot com Web: http://www.eisenbrauns.com Phone: 260-445-3118 Fax: 574-269-6788 On Aug 7, 2012, at 6:39 PM, Will Parsons wrote: > On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 16:05:23 -0500, James Spinti <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Philip, >> >> It is related to Bel in that the Akkadian dropped the Ayin over time >> and the two vowels reduced to an e sound. Babel is from an entirely >> different root. > > I would make a slight amendment - The Akkadian form /bel/ is not the > result of a contraction from *baal, but is the normal reflex of an > earlier *ba`l, with the Akkadian /e/ vowel the normal result of an /a/ > being coloured by the lost /`/ consonant. The hypothetical form *ba`l > would regularly result in the Hebrew /ba`al/ (note the mil`el accent). > > I have to admit, I find it hard to see why on a phonetic basis a /`/ > (`ayin, assumed to be realized phonetically as the pharyngeal [$(Q*~]) > would colour a neighbouring [a] sound to [e], but that seems to be the > pattern in Akkadian. > >> On Aug 7, 2012, at 3:18 PM, Philip Hardy wrote: >> >>> Is word Baal related to Babel or Bel? > > -- > William Parsons > μη φαινεσθαι, αλλ' ειναι. _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
