Is ancient and liturgical Hebrew two different languages?
troll
Looking at the characters the ancient Hebrew and liturgical or modern
Hebrew scripts tend to look much different from each
other, and Aramaic seems to look like a bridge between the two.
The characters of Talmudic or liturgical Hebrew looks closer to
Aramaic to me than Old Hebrew.
I saw a post of a thread a while ago that seemed to imply that Aramaic
was as a spoken language about as far from liturgical or Talmudic
Hebrew as Spanish is from Italian.
The basic question is this. As a spoken language, could someone who
understood ancient spoken Hebrew at the time of king David understand
the spoken Hebrew of the people who compiled the Talmuds in the Near
East during the time of the Roman Empire?
Was the difference between the two not much more or even less
than that between ancient and modern Greek?
Or were they about as distant or more distant than Old English and
Modern English? Were they pretty much two different languages, that
were given the same name 'Hebrew', because they may have both been
partially spoken in the same geographic location, but at different
times, and not really mutually intelligible?
Could an acquaintance of a compiler of the Mishnah or Gemara
understand the spoken language of someone who lived during the time of
King David? Or did Hebrew not change very much from then until the
Gemaras were compiled because the original Hebrew language had been
written down?
Did Hebrew even exist as a regularly used spoken language when the
Mishnah was written, or had Aramaic replaced everyday speech entirely
during that time period? Have the differences between Hebrew and
Aramaic in the past been exaggerated to me? Is Hebrew and Aramaic
only about as distant from each other as classical and modern Greek?
Was the character system used for the Mishnah an attempt to make the
Hebrew script look more like Aramaic, with Hebrew and Aramaic being
two different phonetic languages, but Old Hebrew and Gemara Hebrew
remaining basically the same, or was there as severe a drift between
the two time periods in the two Hebrews as there was between Hebrew
and Aramaic?
It seems to me doubtful that I could get a straight or true answer to
the question on usenet or even informative links here but I though I
might try anyway.
Christopher Ingham
Hebrew, drawn mainly from
I. M. Diakonoff, "Afro-Asiatic languages" (in_EB_15th ed., s.v.
"Languages of the world"), and
P. K. McCarter, Jr., "Hebrew," and S. Creason, "Aramaic," (both in R.
D. Woodard, ed.,_The ancient languages of Syria-Palestine and Arabia_,
Cambridge Univ. Press, 2008, 36-7, 109), and does not attempt to
describe the language and the scripts.
http://books.google.com/books?id=vTrT-bZyuPcC&pg=PA36
Hebrew is one of the Canaanite dialects, as distinct from Aramaic,
although Aramaic is the language most closely related to Hebrew, both
being Northwest Semitic languages [Northwest Semitic < Central Semitic
< West Semitic < Afro-Asiatic].
Hebrew, a dialect of Canaanite, emerges as a discrete language
somewhere around the end of the Bronze Age and beginning of the Iron
Age (before c. 1000 BCE), and in this phase is
called_Archaic_or_Archaic Biblical Hebrew_. The Hebrew from surviving
Iron Age inscriptions and in biblical Primary History (Genesis - 2
Kings) and original portions of the books of the pre-exilic prophets
as well as the generally corresponding speech of the kingdom of Judah
from its inception to the Babylonian Exile (c. 10th - 6th centuries
BCE) is called_Classical_or_Biblical Hebrew_. The Hebrew of Judah of
the Persian and Hellenistic periods and of the later biblical
literature is called_Late Classical_or_Late Biblical Hebrew_.
"The Hebrew of the early post-biblical period is represented by the
Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and especially that of the Mishnah and
other rabbinical literature. The literary documents from Qumran
exhibit substantial continuitywith Late Biblical Hebrew, while the few
nonliterary documents stand much closer linguistically to Rabbinic
Hebrew. From the viewpoint of the development of the language, there
is a distinction between the Hebrew of the early rabbinical works –
the Mishnah, the Tosefta and certain other, primarily halakhic
compositions (c. first - third centuries AD) – and that of the later
rabbinical works – the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds and certain
other, primarily haggadic compositions (fourth century AD and later).
Viewed as a whole, this phase in the development of the language is
called_Middle_or_Rabbinic Hebrew_" [37].
The Hebrew of these periods was a unilinearly evolving dialect. The
use of Aramaic (a language which emerged at the turn of the first
millenium BCE in the Aramean territory around Damascus and Aleppo) in
the second half of the first millenium BCE in Syro-Palestine increased
and became the prevailing language of Samaria and Galilee. Hebrew also
as a literary and spoken language persisted in Palestine into the
rabbinic period. It was commonly assumed until recently that because
Rabbinic Hebrew seems to be a very artificial construct that Hebrew
had ceased to be a spoken language by the first centuries BCE; but
linguistic analysis of the nonliterary or quasi-literary Qumran
documents and the Bar Kochba correspondence from the Wadi Murabba'at
and the Hahal Hever show that Hebrew was a popularly spoken language
into the early centuries CE.
I do not know whether a compiler of the Mishnah would have understood
spoken or written_Archaic Hebrew_.
Christopher Ingham
Peter T. Daniels
wrote:
> This is being cross-posted from soc.history. ancient to sci.lang.
>
> On Sep 19, 11:55 am, troll <trolid...@go.com> wrote:
Gee, thanks for introducing yet another troll to sci.lang.
> > Looking at the characters the ancient Hebrew and liturgical or modern
> > Hebrew scripts tend to look much different from each
> > other, and Aramaic seems to look like a bridge between the two.
> > The characters of Talmudic or liturgical Hebrew looks closer to
> > Aramaic to me than Old Hebrew.
What is "Talmudic or liturgical Hebrew"? The text of the Talmud itself
-- Mishnah and Gemara, Hebrew and Aramaic respectively -- is printed
in the same Square Hebrew characters used for both Biblical and Modern
Hebrew. So are prayerbooks, which is all I can imagine would be meant
by "liturgical."
In order to distinguish them from the main text, some of the
commentaries that are traditionally printed around the main text in a
Talmud edition are set in the "Rashi" type, which is a medieval
Spanish handwriting variety of Square Hebrew. The inventory of letters
is identical, and many of the shapes are almost the same.
Square Hebrew is one of dozens of varieties of Aramaic script that
developed in the centuries around the turn of the era. The switch from
"Old Hebrew" script, which was very like its Phoenician ancestor, to
Square Hebrew took place in the 4th-3rd c. BCE and is associated with
the Babylonian Captivity (whether or not that was a historical
event!): Aramaic script was used in the east, and the Phoenician
script would be unfamiliar in that area.
Old Hebrew script is nowadays found only in Samaritan writings (both
Hebrew- and Aramaic-language).
> > I saw a post of a thread a while ago that seemed to imply that Aramaic
> > was as a spoken language about as far from liturgical or Talmudic
> > Hebrew as Spanish is from Italian.
Aramaic and Hebrew are closely related languages. There are many, many
varieties of Aramaic, because it was used across a very wide area.
Again, I don't know what "liturgical Hebrew" might be.
> > The basic question is this. As a spoken language, could someone who
> > understood ancient spoken Hebrew at the time of king David understand
> > the spoken Hebrew of the people who compiled the Talmuds in the Near
> > East during the time of the Roman Empire?
There probably was no spoken Hebrew at all in the early centuries of
the current era.
Mishnaic Hebrew was probably only a literary language. It has lost a
number of the idiosyncratic features of Biblical Hebrew (such as the
"consecutive" tenses), and its syntax is heavily influenced by
(Aramaic and) Greek syntax.
> > Was the difference between the two not much more or even less
> > than that between ancient and modern Greek?
There is a continuous history of Greek as a native language over the
2500 years in between.
There was no continuous history of native speakers of Hebrew from
about the turn of the era, so no, the differences would be qualitative
rather than quantitative. For the same reason, Modern Greek is
probably more different from Classical Greek than Mishnaic Hebrew is
from Biblical Hebrew, because the users of Mishnaic Hebrew were
learning Hebrew from the biblical and other texts and thought they
were sticking pretty much to the tradition.
> > Or were they about as distant or more distant than Old English and
> > Modern English? Were they pretty much two different languages, that
> > were given the same name 'Hebrew', because they may have both been
> > partially spoken in the same geographic location, but at different
> > times, and not really mutually intelligible?
>
> > Could an acquaintance of a compiler of the Mishnah or Gemara
> > understand the spoken language of someone who lived during the time of
> > King David? Or did Hebrew not change very much from then until the
> > Gemaras were compiled because the original Hebrew language had been
> > written down?
A better question is whether someone from Maccabees time could
understand someone from Monarchy time -- a span of nearly a millennium
works enormous changes on a language.
> > Did Hebrew even exist as a regularly used spoken language when the
> > Mishnah was written, or had Aramaic replaced everyday speech entirely
> > during that time period? Have the differences between Hebrew and
> > Aramaic in the past been exaggerated to me? Is Hebrew and Aramaic
> > only about as distant from each other as classical and modern Greek?
Well, now, I don't know what you think the differences between Aramaic
and Hebrew are, do I. They had quite different verbal systems, very
different syntax, different vocabulary for some quite basic notions,
somewhat different morphology, and phonologies no more different than
between varieties of English.
> > Was the character system used for the Mishnah an attempt to make the
> > Hebrew script look more like Aramaic, with Hebrew and Aramaic being
> > two different phonetic languages, but Old Hebrew and Gemara Hebrew
> > remaining basically the same, or was there as severe a drift between
> > the two time periods in the two Hebrews as there was between Hebrew
> > and Aramaic?
That makes no sense at all. Hebrew and (Jewish) Aramaic use exactly
the same writing system.
> > It seems to me doubtful that I could get a straight or true answer to
> > the question on usenet or even informative links here but I though I
> > might try anyway.
I don't suppose you went so far as consulting these readily available
sources that Christopher listed for you.
> The following is a brief overview of the historical phases of ancient
> Hebrew, drawn mainly from
> I. M. Diakonoff, "Afro-Asiatic languages" (in_EB_15th ed., s.v.
> "Languages of the world"), and
> P. K. McCarter, Jr., "Hebrew," and S. Creason, "Aramaic," (both in R.
> D. Woodard, ed.,_The ancient languages of Syria-Palestine and Arabia_,
> Cambridge Univ. Press, 2008, 36-7, 109), and does not attempt to
> describe the language and the scripts.http://books.google.com/books?id=vTrT-bZyuPcC&pg=PA36
>
> Hebrew is one of the Canaanite dialects, as distinct from Aramaic,
> although Aramaic is the language most closely
Hardly. There are quite a few other Canaanite languages.
> related to Hebrew, both
> being Northwest Semitic languages [Northwest Semitic < Central Semitic
> < West Semitic < Afro-Asiatic].
>
> Hebrew, a dialect of Canaanite, emerges as a discrete language
> somewhere around the end of the Bronze Age and beginning of the Iron
> Age (before c. 1000 BCE), and in this phase is
> called_Archaic_or_Archaic Biblical Hebrew_. The Hebrew from surviving
> Iron Age inscriptions and in biblical Primary History (Genesis - 2
> Kings) and original portions of the books of the pre-exilic prophets
> as well as the generally corresponding speech of the kingdom of Judah
> from its inception to the Babylonian Exile (c. 10th - 6th centuries
> BCE) is called_Classical_or_Biblical Hebrew_. The Hebrew of Judah of
> the Persian and Hellenistic periods and of the later biblical
> literature is called_Late Classical_or_Late Biblical Hebrew_.
So Gary Rendsburg's lifework on Northern Israelian Hebrew
(identifiable within the historical books) has been for nought?
Define "popularly."
Yusuf B Gursey
wrote:
>
> Hebrew is one of the Canaanite dialects, as distinct from Aramaic,
> although Aramaic is the language most closely related to Hebrew, both
> being Northwest Semitic languages [Northwest Semitic < Central Semitic
> < West Semitic < Afro-Asiatic].
>
this part has been disputed recently by some authors, and in spite of
the ecent date of the article. the view promoted by some is that
Canaanite - Aramaic - Arabic is a three way split, with Arabic and
Canaanite (of which Hebrew is a member) being slightly more closely
related and some even speaking of a Arabo-Canaanite branch. the
arguments are grammatical features that Arabic and Hebrew (Canaanite)
share, such as a pre-post article, and Aramaic having having a post-
posed determinative. the seeming closeness between Aramaic and Hebrew
being more due to prolonged contact, while Arabic (and Ancient North
Arabian) having retained archaicisms by having moved south.
Christopher Ingham
of the Northwest Semitic languages; while the Sayhadic (Old or
Epigraphic South Arabian) languages, and varieties of Arabic are two
separate groups that with Northwest Semitic comprise the Central
Semitic languages; although, as you explain, this schema evidently is
not definitive.
Christopher Ingham
Christopher Ingham
synopsis? For the benefit of the uninitiated, Is there any systematic
method to differentiate Hebrew exhibiting pre-exilic Aramaic contact
from Late Biblical Hebrew, or do assessments have to be made on a case
by case basis?
according to McCarter.
Christopher Ingham
>
> > I do not know whether a compiler of the Mishnah would have understood
> > spoken or written_Archaic Hebrew_.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yusuf B Gursey
wrote:
> On Sep 19, 3:04 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <y...@theworld.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 19, 2:14 pm, Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Hebrew is one of the Canaanite dialects, as distinct from Aramaic,
> > > although Aramaic is the language most closely related to Hebrew, both
> > > being Northwest Semitic languages [Northwest Semitic < Central Semitic
> > > < West Semitic < Afro-Asiatic].
>
> > this part has been disputed recently by some authors, and in spite of
> > the ecent date of the article. the view promoted by some is that
> > Canaanite - Aramaic - Arabic is a three way split, with Arabic and
> > Canaanite (of which Hebrew is a member) being slightly more closely
> > related and some even speaking of a Arabo-Canaanite branch. the
> > arguments are grammatical features that Arabic and Hebrew (Canaanite)
> > share, such as a pre-post article, and Aramaic having having a post-
should be: pre-posed article.
> > posed determinative. the seeming closeness between Aramaic and Hebrew
> > being more due to prolonged contact, while Arabic (and Ancient North
> > Arabian) having retained archaicisms by having moved south.
>
> By convention, Ugaritic is included with Canaanite and Aramaic as one
> of the Northwest Semitic languages; while the Sayhadic (Old or
> Epigraphic South Arabian) languages, and varieties of Arabic are two
the tendency now is to group Arabic with Canaanite rather than with
Sayhadic (which has a post-posed article). the similarity in
vocabulary with Sayhadic is explained by contact. Ugaritic stands
apart from all these in having gemination define the imperfect, while
the rest (including with a roundabout way of determining whether
Sayhadic had gemination or not, it seems it hadn't).
> separate groups that with Northwest Semitic comprise the Central
> Semitic languages; although, as you explain, this schema evidently is
> not definitive.
>
> Christopher Ingham.
Yusuf B Gursey
Masoretic Hebrew preonounciation is based on early first half first
millenium CE Aramaic. Hberew at teh timeof the Septaugint
distinguished two pronounciations of Heth the unvoiced pharyngeal
fricative /ḥ/ and its velar (or uvular) equivalent /*kh*/ (i.e. /x/).
Masoretic Hebrew only has the unvoiced pharyngeal fricative /ḥ/. also
a distinction was made (though less strongly attested for the
Septaugint) between voiced pharyngeal fricative /`/ `ayin and its
velar (or uvular) equivalent /*gh*/ Arabic ghayn, merging later into
`ayin /`/. the orthography does not make the distinction between the
velar (uvular) and pharyngeal pairs. the pharyngeal pronounciations
survived (the Israeli Hebrew pronounciationof Heth with an uvular
pronounciation is an innovation, not a survival).
IIRC there are some anectodes in the Talmud of some rural people from
Judea speaking Hebrew and not Aramaic.
Peter T. Daniels
wrote:
> On Sep 19, 2:49 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Sep 19, 2:14 pm, Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net>
> > wrote:
> > > Hebrew, a dialect of Canaanite, emerges as a discrete language
> > > somewhere around the end of the Bronze Age and beginning of the Iron
> > > Age (before c. 1000 BCE), and in this phase is
> > > called_Archaic_or_Archaic Biblical Hebrew_. The Hebrew from surviving
> > > Iron Age inscriptions and in biblical Primary History (Genesis - 2
> > > Kings) and original portions of the books of the pre-exilic prophets
> > > as well as the generally corresponding speech of the kingdom of Judah
> > > from its inception to the Babylonian Exile (c. 10th - 6th centuries
> > > BCE) is called_Classical_or_Biblical Hebrew_. The Hebrew of Judah of
> > > the Persian and Hellenistic periods and of the later biblical
> > > literature is called_Late Classical_or_Late Biblical Hebrew_.
>
> > So Gary Rendsburg's lifework on Northern Israelian Hebrew
> > (identifiable within the historical books) has been for nought?
>
> So you had to throw a synchronic monkey wrench into my elegantly brief
> synopsis? For the benefit of the uninitiated, Is there any systematic
> method to differentiate Hebrew exhibiting pre-exilic Aramaic contact
> from Late Biblical Hebrew, or do assessments have to be made on a case
> by case basis?
Well, first you'd have to get any two biblical scholars to agree on
the analysis of the components of the text ("sources"), and then on
the relative, and then on the absolute dating of each component. The
problem is that the criteria for separating the components are
precisely the criteria that would be used for linguistic dating.
What Gary dealt with was the long narrative known as the "dynastic
history," which occupies much of I-II Samuel and a bit of Kings and is
linguistically homogeneous, and he found certain features
characteristic of it that don't appear in the bulk of the prose texts.
Some very few. Nationalists like Bar Kokhba could well have tried a
"revival" of Hebrew just like ben-Yehuda 1850 years later. Bar
Kokhba's coins are even inscribed in the Old Hebrew script (which
otherwise was used only in the most sacred contexts -- the
Tetragrammaton in a few Dead Sea scrolls, and a single DSS scroll of
Leviticus). There have recently been suggestions that the Old Hebrew
use represents a survival rather than a revival, but the evidence
doesn't lean their way.
> Christopher Ingham
Peter T. Daniels
The current agnostic position (held by e.g. John Huehnergard) is that
Ethiopic and Modern South Arabian cannot be closely connected with any
other branches within Semitic, so Old South Arabian goes in Central
and the other two former components of South Semitic can now only be
separate branches of West Semitic.
Yusuf B Gursey
Norwthwest Semtic is still retained as areal grouping apart from
Arabic (for purposes as a field of research), but the genetic grouping
is seriously in doubt.
Yusuf B Gursey
From: Yusuf B Gursey <y...@TheWorld.com>
Newsgroups: soc.history.ancient,sci.lang
Subject: Re: Palestineans to Philistines?
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 20:00:29 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <i1npct$blm$1...@pcls6.std.com>
In sci.lang Peter T. Daniels <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in
<d81419d1-3935-44f1-8e5b-e289a1de3...@i28g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>:
: On Jul 12, 11:07?pm, Yusuf B Gursey <y...@theworld.com> wrote:
:> On Jul 12, 10:31?pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net>
wrote:
:> > On Jul 12, 8:09?pm, DKleinecke <dkleine...@gmail.com> wrote:
:> > > I have seen the weakening of the final -t in Hebrew and Arabic
:> > > explained in terms of a lost mora at the end of all words. I do
not
:> > > find this completely convincing as it stands. Especially when
you
:> > > consider constructs. ?Perhaps supported by a more complete
theory of
:> > > sentence level enunciation. But otherwise the weakening seems
:> > > unmotivated and its restriction to a single morpheme very odd.
:>
:> > > Of course, it may have been the case that this -t was the only
final
:> > > stop. I think this is defendable with a minimum of adjustment
:> > > elsewhere in the lexicon. Then the morpheme smells very much
like a
:> > > borrowing and Egyptian would be the obvious source. ?I am
getting in
:> > > over my head.
:>
:> > > What is the generally accepted name for the language group that
:> > > includes Arabic, Hebrew, the Canaanite languages and nothing
much
:> > > else?-
:>
:> > That's not a natural class. The current subgrouping has Central
:>
:> things have changed then. I don't read German, but I was able to
:> figure out enough:
:>
:> Journal of Semitic Studies XLIII/2 Autumn 1998
:> DER ARTIKEL IM SEMITISCHEN1
:> RAINERVOIGT
:>
:> has "Kanaanaoarabisch" ?for a classifiaction of Semitic based on
the
:> article.
:>
:> in
:>
:> Journal of Semitic Studies XXXII/1 Spring 1987
:> THE CLASSIFICATION OF CENTRAL
:> SEMITIC
:> RAINER M.VOIGT
:>
:> he has "Hetzron's Central Semitic" (Aramaic, Arabic and Canaanite)
but
:> Aramaic shown branching off before Arabic and Canaanite. for
:> "Northwest Semitic" he has Ugaritic and "Tell Amarna" on the one
hand
:> and "Hetzron's Central Semitic" on the other, "Central Semitic"
:> includes "Northwest Semitic" and "South West Semitic" (Epigraphic
:> South Arabian)". "West Semitic"has "Central Semitic" and "South
:> Semitic" (Modern South Arabian). "Proto Semitic" branches into
"West
:> Semitic" and "East Semitic" (Akkadian)
:>
:> > Semitic comprising Arabic plus Northwest Semitic (NWSem is
Ugaritic +
:> > Canaanite + Aramaic + Deir Alla).
:>
:> > See Faber in the Hetzron Routledge vol.,summarizing her 1980
Texas
:> > dissertation.
:>
:> > Huehnergard in the Woodard Encyc. puts Old South Arabian in
Central
:> > also, with coordinate branches for both Modern South Arabian and
:> > Ethiopic.-
: Huehnergard's latest (the 2010 version of his class book, which will
: eventually be published) likewise has three coordinate branches, but
: still he doesn't give the criteria for the classification:
: Ethiopian
: Mahrian (Modern South Arabian)
: Central
: Central comprises South Arabian, North Arabian, and Syro-Palestinian
: (aka Northwest).
so he finds Aramaic closer to Canaanite?
I tend to think thta North Arabian is closer to Canaanite, based on
the article and other points of grammar.
Yusuf B Gursey
or, it is a real grouping that includes Arabic. Ugaritic is included
by Voigt into NW Semitic, though he doesn't go into the fact that SW
Semitic (Sayhadic) seems not to have had the gemination in the
imperfect. he does use the term Arabo-Canaanite as well.
Christopher Ingham
answered in the affirmative when asked again if he really thought it
possible that the Koran was penned by Jewish scribes (his most recent
novel has this senario). He bases this not new idea on the fact that
Medina in the seventh century had many Jewish scholars, and that Arab
tribesmen at that time would have been illiterate. He also reiterated
that he means no disrespect to Muslims.
Christopher Ingham
>
> > I do not know whether a compiler of the Mishnah would have understood
> > spoken or written_Archaic Hebrew_.
>
> > Christopher Ingham- Hide quoted text -
Yusuf B Gursey
that would not explain the Christian and South Arabian elements in the
Qur'an and how Hebrew - Aramaic words are sometimes "garbled up". the
names fo the prophets outside the Pentatuech appear to have come
Melkite sources. there are many theories about the Qur'an originating
from somewhere else or soem other language, or the alledged illiteracy
of the Arabs, they don't hold up to scrutiny. there are dated
documents in Arabic from the time of `Umar (22 AH, with the Greek date
with Coptic months corresponding to the tabulated value, whereas the
final redaction of the Qur'an is attributed to `Uthman.
Yusuf B Gursey
in the earliest period there were probably more phonemes, like /*th*/
that became /*sh*/ shin (the orthogrpahy does nto allow us to be
certain) . that's one intepreation of the Shobboleth story.
Yusuf B Gursey
I was mistaken, Ugaritic does not have gemination in the imperfect of
the simple stem.
Yusuf B Gursey
I was wrong about Ugaritic having gemination in the simple stem of the
imperfect.
Peter T. Daniels
Does he explain why they would use an inadequate form of Nabataean
script (where so many letterforms had merged) instead of a Hebrew
script, which with considerably fewer diacritics was used for
centuries (a bit later) for Judeo-Arabic?
Peter T. Daniels
Or, for that matter, instead of the South Semitic script that had been
used for centuries for Old North Arabian throughout the deserts west
and north of Mecca and Medina, which had a letter for every consonant!
Matt Giwer
> Looking at the characters the ancient Hebrew and liturgical or modern
> Hebrew scripts tend to look much different from each
> other, and Aramaic seems to look like a bridge between the two.
> The characters of Talmudic or liturgical Hebrew looks closer to
> Aramaic to me than Old Hebrew.
We look to tradition and believers or members of a believing culture finding
what they expect to find. We also look to a long tradition where the nonsense
of believers created the terminology. Consider everyone knows what is meant by
"the time of Solomon" or "the time of Moses" even though both are myths and
obviously had no "times" associated with them.
Obviously simply calling the language Hebrew is based solely upon a religious
tradition which is now known to be bullshit. It was once believed that Moses
wrote the Torah. It was assumed he wrote it in the language of the Hebrews
therefore it was called Hebrew. Myths do not write things in any language. The
tradition of special treatment for this one variation makes as much of its
difference as the strength of faith of the scholar.
We have a parallel in the Hellenic world from the peninsula to the Bosporus
which have a much greater variety than you are talking about but which are
referred to as Greek. Similarly the languages you are talking about should be
called Aramaic and if there is a particular variation of interest then a
suitable modifier such as hebraic Aramaic would be appropriate. It might also
be appropriate to call them all Phoenician.
> I saw a post of a thread a while ago that seemed to imply that Aramaic
> was as a spoken language about as far from liturgical or Talmudic
> Hebrew as Spanish is from Italian.
> The basic question is this. As a spoken language, could someone who
> understood ancient spoken Hebrew at the time of king David understand
> the spoken Hebrew of the people who compiled the Talmuds in the Near
> East during the time of the Roman Empire?
Crank up the Way-back machine, Sherman.
Before the Dead Sea Scrolls it was the common opinion of scholars that Hebrew
was an invented, liturgical language. After the DSS were found to contain a
couple of common letters (as in epistles) the believers jumped in with
"SEE?!?!" and took it as vindication of Hebrew as a spoken language.
There are many problems with this as vindication. There is no mention of any
unique dialect used in bibleland. What is well known is they spoke Aramaic
when Judeans first appear in history in 67 BC. There is zero indication of a
scribal culture in bibleland prior to the Greeks so it is not clear how such a
local dialect could have both existed and survived in written form.
Therefore there is not only no evidence of a spoken Hebrew but no basis for
claiming it ever existed as a spoken language. The believers are still out in
left field.
> Was the difference between the two not much more or even less
> than that between ancient and modern Greek?
Perhaps a bit more like one of the Anatolian dialects compared to ancient Greek.
> Or were they about as distant or more distant than Old English and
> Modern English? Were they pretty much two different languages, that
> were given the same name 'Hebrew', because they may have both been
> partially spoken in the same geographic location, but at different
> times, and not really mutually intelligible?
The simple fact is there are not enough samples of the "ancient" dialects to
tell. To establish a fact we would have to have samples from all over the
region at several different times say a century or two apart. There are not
sufficient samples to do this. In fact the samples are widely scattered in
both geography and time. No conclusions are possible unless one is arguing
towards a particular conclusion -- which the believers are certainly doing.
> Could an acquaintance of a compiler of the Mishnah or Gemara
> understand the spoken language of someone who lived during the time of
> King David? Or did Hebrew not change very much from then until the
> Gemaras were compiled because the original Hebrew language had been
> written down?
David is also a myth. The Septuagint appears in history before any "hebrew"
appears in any document. There is no reason to think they were dealing with
any "ancient" language regardless of what it is called.
> Did Hebrew even exist as a regularly used spoken language when the
> Mishnah was written, or had Aramaic replaced everyday speech entirely
> during that time period? Have the differences between Hebrew and
> Aramaic in the past been exaggerated to me? Is Hebrew and Aramaic
> only about as distant from each other as classical and modern Greek?
As there is no evidence "hebrew" was ever a spoken language it is absurd to
talk about it being replaced. First the evidence of it as a spoken language
must be presented before any change to another spoken language can be
discussed rationally.
> Was the character system used for the Mishnah an attempt to make the
> Hebrew script look more like Aramaic, with Hebrew and Aramaic being
> two different phonetic languages, but Old Hebrew and Gemara Hebrew
> remaining basically the same, or was there as severe a drift between
> the two time periods in the two Hebrews as there was between Hebrew
> and Aramaic?
Get with the tradition here. The Torah is to be a perfect copy. I single
error means the scribe must start over. This tradition cannot have existed
prior to the adoption of the Aramaic script.
> It seems to me doubtful that I could get a straight or true answer to
> the question on usenet or even informative links here but I though I
> might try anyway.
For example it is not unusual for a language to lack indefinite articles but
have only definite articles. For example The Thee himself! In "hebrew" it is
Ha in Greek Ho. So strange "hebrew" is like a pidgin Greek -- Aramaic adapted
to Greek.
--
Fung Shua is Chinese for People Will Believe Anything.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4274
http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/is-seg.phtml a14
Mon Sep 20 00:21:26 EDT 2010
Matt Giwer
> A better question is whether someone from Maccabees time could
> understand someone from Monarchy time -- a span of nearly a millennium
> works enormous changes on a language.
The monarchy is a myth which first appears in the Septuagint. There is no
evidence for it any more than there is for Adam or Abraham or Moses.
--
Vox Populi Vox Sunac
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4284
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/ a8
Mon Sep 20 01:08:35 EDT 2010
Matt Giwer
...
> Masoretic Hebrew preonounciation is based on early first half first
> millenium CE Aramaic. Hberew at teh timeof the Septaugint
> distinguished two pronounciations of Heth the unvoiced pharyngeal
> Masoretic Hebrew only has the unvoiced pharyngeal fricative /ḥ/. also
> a distinction was made (though less strongly attested for the
> Septaugint) between voiced pharyngeal fricative /`/ `ayin and its
> velar (or uvular) equivalent /*gh*/ Arabic ghayn, merging later into
> `ayin /`/. the orthography does not make the distinction between the
> velar (uvular) and pharyngeal pairs. the pharyngeal pronounciations
> survived (the Israeli Hebrew pronounciationof Heth with an uvular
> pronounciation is an innovation, not a survival).
OR
This "hebrew" is an attempt to create an "original" for the Septuagint to be
a translation of but different people did different parts over decades. Thus
these "differences" arise solely from "knowing" the modern meaning and
imposing it upon the old script.
If you think this is strange consider what Trekkies have done with the
original series.
So many of the "problems" understanding the original are as easily attributed
to the inventor's variations not becoming the common usage.
--
Both Turkey and Greece occupy Cyprus. The feud between those countries can
be traced back to Helen of Troy.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4277
http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/bombings.phtml a5
Mon Sep 20 01:15:36 EDT 2010
Matt Giwer
> this part has been disputed recently by some authors, and in spite of
> the ecent date of the article. the view promoted by some is that
> Canaanite - Aramaic - Arabic is a three way split, with Arabic and
> Canaanite
Canaanites are only found in the Septuagint.
--
If you could reason with Zionists there would be no Zionists.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4272
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/nizgas3.html a4
Mon Sep 20 01:23:37 EDT 2010
Yusuf B Gursey
that's brought up as one of the minor mysteries of Islam, as to why
they adopted the Arabic script instead of South Semitic script. my
guess is that South Arabian civilization had collapsed (the last
Sabaic inscription of the Ethiopian rulers of Yemen is just before
Muhammad) and the Arabs of Hijaz were looking north. Arab tradition
attributes the introduction of the Arabic script into Arabia to the
Lakhmids (S. Iraq. sattelite kingdom of the Sasanids; and some
Western scholars argue for a Lakhmid origin of the Arabic script - in
its transformation from Nabataean). and the Ghassanids (phylarchs of
the Byzantines, IIRC eventually endowed with the title "king") of
Southern Greater Syria also used the Arabic script on occassion. the
two kingdoms (clients of rival powers) both promoted poets from
Arabia. Muhammad's poet was previously a poet of the Ghassanid court.
two pre-Islamic Arabic inscriptions from northern Arabia (within the
borders of present day Saudi Arabia have been found:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/sakaka2.html
Two Pre-Islamic Arabic Inscriptions From Sakakah, Saudi Arabia
also writing was used for contracts: al-Baqara 2:282 (Yusuf Ali)
Al-Baqara
O ye who believe! when ye deal with each other, in transactions
involving future obligations in a fixed period of time, reduce them to
writing. Let a scribe write: down faithfully as between the parties:
let not the scribe refuse to write as Allah has taught him, so let him
write. ...
يَـٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوٓاْ إِذَا تَدَايَنتُم بِدَيۡنٍ إِلَىٰٓ
أَجَلٍ۬ مُّسَمًّ۬ى فَٱڪۡتُبُوهُۚ وَلۡيَكۡتُب بَّيۡنَكُمۡ ڪَاتِبُۢ
بِٱلۡعَدۡلِۚ وَلَا يَأۡبَ كَاتِبٌ أَن يَكۡتُبَ ڪَمَا عَلَّمَهُ
ٱللَّهُۚ فَلۡيَڪۡتُبۡ
...
Yusuf B Gursey
> On 09/19/2010 03:04 PM, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>
> > this part has been disputed recently by some authors, and in spite of
> > the ecent date of the article. the view promoted by some is that
> > Canaanite - Aramaic - Arabic is a three way split, with Arabic and
> > Canaanite
>
> Canaanites are only found in the Septuagint.
>
NO! they are mentioned in several inscriptional sources, Akkadian,
Ugaritic, Amarna letters. I gave references in another thread in
soc.history.ancient . but I guess you simply refuse to accept evidence
contrary to your pre-concieved beliefs.
Yusuf B Gursey
> On 09/19/2010 02:49 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > A better question is whether someone from Maccabees time could
> > understand someone from Monarchy time -- a span of nearly a millennium
> > works enormous changes on a language.
>
> The monarchy is a myth which first appears in the Septuagint. There is no
> evidence for it any more than there is for Adam or Abraham or Moses.
>
NO! it is attested in several ancient inscriptions.
Yusuf B Gursey
> On 09/19/2010 04:51 PM, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> ...
>
> > Masoretic Hebrew preonounciation is based on early first half first
> > millenium CE Aramaic. Hberew at teh timeof the Septaugint
> > distinguished two pronounciations of Heth the unvoiced pharyngeal
> > fricative /ḥ/ and its velar (or uvular) equivalent /*kh*/ (i.e. /x/).
> > Masoretic Hebrew only has the unvoiced pharyngeal fricative /ḥ/. also
> > a distinction was made (though less strongly attested for the
> > Septaugint) between voiced pharyngeal fricative /`/ `ayin and its
> > velar (or uvular) equivalent /*gh*/ Arabic ghayn, merging later into
> > `ayin /`/. the orthography does not make the distinction between the
> > velar (uvular) and pharyngeal pairs. the pharyngeal pronounciations
> > survived (the Israeli Hebrew pronounciationof Heth with an uvular
> > pronounciation is an innovation, not a survival).
>
> OR
>
> This "hebrew" is an attempt to create an "original" for the Septuagint to be
> a translation of but different people did different parts over decades. Thus
> these "differences" arise solely from "knowing" the modern meaning and
> imposing it upon the old script.
>
> If you think this is strange consider what Trekkies have done with the
> original series.
>
> So many of the "problems" understanding the original are as easily attributed
> to the inventor's variations not becoming the common usage.
>
whatever, it's your pre-concieved notions.
Yusuf B Gursey
Enc. of Islam II "Ḥassān b. THābit" (W. `Arafat)
<<
Ḥassān b. THābit b. al-Mundhir b. Ḥarām , of the Khazradj tribe of
Yathrib (later Medīna), traditionally known as the “poet laureate” of
the Prophet, is more correctly the most prominent of several poets who
were associated with the rise of Islam , and one who already had an
established reputation in the Djāhiliyya. When Muḥammad arrived at
Medina, Ḥassān was of mature age (though probably not yet 60—which is
the age given by most authorities including Ibn Isḥāḳ who relies
directly on Ḥassān's grandson Saʿīd—or even 52 or 53 years old as
other authorities suggest), and had written panegyrics on the
Ghassānid and Lakhmid princes, visited them in their courts and
received gifts from them.
>>
(the Khazraj were not Jewish)
there is a minority theory that Muhammad knew the South Semitic
script, but learned the Arabic script later. it is based on the
following verse:
A CONCORDANCE OF THE QUR'AN
Hanna E. Kassis
(J.A. Arberry translation;)
"al-`Ankabūt"
<<
*KH Ṭ Ṭ
KHAṬṬA vb. (I)-to inscribe, to write
b) impf. act. (yakhuṭṭu)
29:48 (47) not before this didst thou recite any Book, or inscribe it
with thy right hand
سُوۡرَةُ العَنکبوت
وَمَا كُنتَ تَتۡلُواْ مِن قَبۡلِهِۦ مِن كِتَـٰبٍ۬ وَلَا تَخُطُّهُ ۥ
بِيَمِينِكَۖ إِذً۬ا لَّٱرۡتَابَ ٱلۡمُبۡطِلُونَ
(٤٨)
a
>>
it says wa-lā taxuṭṭuhu bi-yamīnika وَلَا تَخُطُّهُ ۥ بِيَمِينِكَ
xaṭṭa means both "to write, inscribe, and "draw a staright line",
خَطٌّ xaṭṭ means both "a line", and "writing". but the interpetation
is that it refers to the Arabic script, written along a line, whereas
the South Semitic script is block letters. but that is just a curious
theory.
Christopher Ingham
He doesn't go into any further detail in other reports I've come
across. In a NYT interview of 3 September he says, "A writer of
historical fiction has poetic license." But his idea doesn't seem to
be totally ridiculous, considering some of the various and unknowable
factors involved surrounding the composition of the Qur'ān.
There was triglossia in sixth-century Arabia, comprising local
dialects and two supraregional languages, ESA and ECA. The situation
was actually quadrilingual, if Aramaic is included.
Literary evidence in pre-Islamic Arabia is restricted mainly to short
accounts, usually of a business nature (there is only one example of
"literature," dating to the first century CE, written in Ancient South
Arabian script), indicating that "literary" compositions were
transmitted orally. Papyrus, leather, and parchment are not documented
archaeologically, nor is writing in ink.
That liturgical practices of Jews and Christians in the urban centers,
on the other hand, involved some scribal activity is supposed (but as
yet there is no hard evidence). Islamic tradition attests a number of
people able to read and write in Mecca and Medina, and they most
likely would have been trained by members of the Jewish and Christian
communities, "or may even have been part of them" [Stein 2009, 273].
Also, there were many Arab converts to Judaiam in the sixth century,
and they would have written in the inherited local scripts and
languages.
And there is of course a Jewish origin of many Qur'ānic conceptions,
but this is another subject altogether, and is moreover attributable
in textual criticism in almost all cases to reasons other than the
influence of Jewish scribes.
See E. A. Knauf, "Arabo-Aramaic and 'Arabiya: From ancient Arabic to
Early Standard Arabic," and P. Stein, "Literacy in pre-Islamic
Arabia: An analysis of the epigraphic evidence," both in A. Neuwirth
et al., eds., _The Qur'ān in context: Historical and literary
investigations into the Qur'ānic milieu_(Boston: Brill, 2009, 197-254,
255-80).
http://books.google.com/books?id=GcgCErhKGrAC&pg=PA197
Christopher Ingham
Peter T. Daniels
Jews would have written in Hebrew script, Christians in Greek or
possibly Coptic alphabet.
> And there is of course a Jewish origin of many Qur'ānic conceptions,
> but this is another subject altogether, and is moreover attributable
> in textual criticism in almost all cases to reasons other than the
> influence of Jewish scribes.
>
> See E. A. Knauf, "Arabo-Aramaic and 'Arabiya: From ancient Arabic to
> Early Standard Arabic," and P. Stein, "Literacy in pre-Islamic
> Arabia: An analysis of the epigraphic evidence," both in A. Neuwirth
> et al., eds., _The Qur'ān in context: Historical and literary
> investigations into the Qur'ānic milieu_(Boston: Brill, 2009, 197-254,
> 255-80).http://books.google.com/books?id=GcgCErhKGrAC&pg=PA197
MCA Macdonald yields to Peter Stein on the South Arabian cursive
documents -- is one of those what you refer to above?
The monumental SA script is probably not in consideration, and the ONA
script is undatable but is much more widespread than the Nabataean and
would have been so much more useful!
António Marques
> The monumental SA script is probably not in consideration, and the ONA
> script is undatable but is much more widespread than the Nabataean and
> would have been so much more useful!
Is there any historical case of arabic having been written with a 'better'
script than its usual one? (From what I've seen of maltese orthography, it
hardly counts as an improvement.)
Peter T. Daniels
Because of Arabic's special religious status, there would be extreme
pressure not to use some other script for it, even for the most
mundane secular purposes. Note that ordinary secular documents often
bear the Shahada at the top, and you couldn't write that with any
other script.
But the inadequacy of the Nabataean forebear was overcome by the 2nd
c. AH, when the consonant dots had become obligatory. And Arabic
orthography is by and large preferable to Hebrew/Aramaic orthography,
because all and only the long vowels are obligatorily indicated.
(Except in the handful of lexical items where the Qur'an text was
vocalized by people from a different dialect from that of those who
had established the consonantal framework -- also the origin of the
odd things that go on at the end of the word.)
Yusuf B Gursey
> On Sep 20, 7:52 am, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
>
> > Peter T. Daniels wrote (20-09-2010 12:26):
>
> > > The monumental SA script is probably not in consideration, and the ONA
> > > script is undatable but is much more widespread than the Nabataean and
> > > would have been so much more useful!
>
> > Is there any historical case of arabic having been written with a 'better'
> > script than its usual one? (From what I've seen of maltese orthography, it
Ḥimyari (the divergent Arabic dialect of ancient Yemen) continued to
be written in the South Semitic script, it survived in a little
garbled form in two medieval works, but that is not an improvement as
no vowel indication was present. Ḥimyari survives in an aarbized way
in some way as some modern Yemeni colloquials of the mountains, but
this is not written. there is also the romanized glossaries in
Andalusian Arabic - Spanish, for use by Spanish christians after the
Reconquest, if that counts. Chadian Arabic (Chad is outside the Arab
league, yet the Arabs constitute the largest, but not majority, ethnic
group) is now written roman based script with some litterature. French
and now, Classical Arabic are the official languages of Chad. also
Hassaniya Arabic (the dialect of Mauritenia and "Southern Sahara" -
status undetermined) known as "Moorish" is written in the roman
"Africa alphabet" as a minority language in non-Arab West African
countries that also offer radio broadcasts in it. there was also a
serious attempt at romanization of Egyptian Colloquial under the
British protectorate, but this was short lived and did not survive
full Egyptian independence. though it does serve as a basis for the
transcription of place names in Egypt
> > hardly counts as an improvement.)
>
> Because of Arabic's special religious status, there would be extreme
> pressure not to use some other script for it, even for the most
> mundane secular purposes. Note that ordinary secular documents often
> bear the Shahada at the top, and you couldn't write that with any
no, it's the basmala. "In the name of God, the Compassionate and the
Merciful"
> other script.
>
> But the inadequacy of the Nabataean forebear was overcome by the 2nd
> c. AH, when the consonant dots had become obligatory. And Arabic
> orthography is by and large preferable to Hebrew/Aramaic orthography,
> because all and only the long vowels are obligatorily indicated.
> (Except in the handful of lexical items where the Qur'an text was
> vocalized by people from a different dialect from that of those who
> had established the consonantal framework -- also the origin of the
> odd things that go on at the end of the word.)
I had told you this before.
they are not due to differences in dialect. the alif was as /ā/ was
not in general circulation, the oldest Qur'ans have very few of them.
a early Umayyad Caliph added the alif's later, and irregularly (many
words have been spelt with and without alif). there are also different
scribal traditions extant as to the number of alif's in the Qur'an. my
Turkish editions have more than the current Egyptian (al-'Azhar)
standard edition. in many editions, the alif was ommitted on purpose
because there was disagreement as to whether a word should be
pronounced with /a/ or /ā/. such is the case in the opening Surah as
to the word ملك <mlk> is usually written without alif because the
Warsh reading (in N. Africa) read it as malik "king" and the Ḥafṣ
reading (most of the Muslim world) read it as mālik ("possesor, lord,
king"; the word refers to God) {the Turkish edition takes a stand,
writing the alif for mālik}. outside of the Qur'an the alif is
ommitted in الله allāh and الرحمن al-raḥmān ("the Compassionate", used
only of God; it dominates the early Meccan surahs), the second most
common word for God, and إله 'ilāh "deity. these were considered taboo
words, too sacred to be tinkered with. for some reason, the alif is
also ommitted in some common demostratives, but there is no evidence
that this is a problem of dialect.
Yusuf B Gursey
> On Sep 20, 9:30 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 20, 7:52 am, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
>
> > > Peter T. Daniels wrote (20-09-2010 12:26):
>
> > > > The monumental SA script is probably not in consideration, and the ONA
> > > > script is undatable but is much more widespread than the Nabataean and
> > > > would have been so much more useful!
>
> > > Is there any historical case of arabic having been written with a 'better'
> > > script than its usual one? (From what I've seen of maltese orthography, it
>
there is also a curious christian theological Arabic manuscript from
Syria (or Greater Syria) in Greek script, showing a tendency towards
the colloquials. it is considered by some to be pre-Islamic. it is
presumed that it was a "study aid" for Arab Christians.
Peter T. Daniels
Sorry, but I'd prefer to trust Kees Versteegh.
And Werner Diem published a very detailed study of all the available
early materials in Orientalia in several articles in 1971-72.
> they are not due to differences in dialect. the alif was as /ā/ was
> not in general circulation, the oldest Qur'ans have very few of them.
> a early Umayyad Caliph added the alif's later, and irregularly (many
> words have been spelt with and without alif). there are also different
> scribal traditions extant as to the number of alif's in the Qur'an. my
> Turkish editions have more than the current Egyptian (al-'Azhar)
> standard edition. in many editions, the alif was ommitted on purpose
> because there was disagreement as to whether a word should be
> pronounced with /a/ or /ā/. such is the case in the opening Surah as
> to the word ملك <mlk> is usually written without alif because the
> Warsh reading (in N. Africa) read it as malik "king" and the Ḥafṣ
> reading (most of the Muslim world) read it as mālik ("possesor, lord,
> king"; the word refers to God) {the Turkish edition takes a stand,
> writing the alif for mālik}. outside of the Qur'an the alif is
> ommitted in الله allāh and الرحمن al-raḥmān ("the Compassionate", used
> only of God; it dominates the early Meccan surahs), the second most
> common word for God, and إله 'ilāh "deity. these were considered taboo
> words, too sacred to be tinkered with. for some reason, the alif is
> also ommitted in some common demostratives, but there is no evidence
> that this is a problem of dialect.
Theological disputes concerning a handful of individual words are
irrelevant to the general practice.
Lasrachán Mac Doireacháin
> (From what I've seen of maltese orthography, it
> hardly counts as an improvement.)
Would you elaborate?
Christopher Ingham
the goddess Shams [Stein 2009, 268, 268n.42].
Christopher Ingham
>
> The monumental SA script is probably not in consideration, and the ONA
> script is undatable but is much more widespread than the Nabataean and
> would have been so much more useful!- Hide quoted text -
Yusuf B Gursey
BTW you are stating the opinions of the two articles you later give
reference as if all of it were well established.
>
> There was triglossia in sixth-century Arabia, comprising local
> dialects and two supraregional languages, ESA and ECA. The situation
BTW the articles mean by ESA "Early Standard Arabic" (not "Epigraphic
South Arabian" for which it usually stands for) and ECA "Early
Classical Arabic"; he really refers to two registers, it's his own
distinction, not a universally accepted one.
> was actually quadrilingual, if Aramaic is included.
Aramaic was only in southern Greater Syria and S. Iraq along with
Arabic. the article is in error as attributing Nestorian Christianity
to the Lakhmids. Nestorian Christianity, whose language was Syriac,
was certainly widespread among the populace, as a bishopric was set in
their capital al-Ḥīra with branches along the Arab side of the Gulf
coast. but only two Lakhmid kings were christian, the second, the
shifty Imru'al-Qays who defected to the Romans, and the last, who
definitely converted to Nestorian Christianity, some say precipitating
their full annexation by Persia. that the Lakhmids practiced Arab
paganism is confirmed by the following early 19th century article on
the reconstruction of the pre-Islamic Arabic Calendar (there is a
debate whether it included an intercalary month at all, and what was
the algorithm for the intercalation, if there was any, the article is
a famous one advocating intercalation every three years. it was
translated into English from French in the 1940's). "Al-Mondar Arabs"
refers to the Lakhmids, as many were named al-Mundhir. nasī' refers to
the postponment of a sacred month, either by intercalation of a
profane month or simply by decree. fighting was forbidden in a sacred
month.
"Memoire Sur Le Calendrier Arabe Avant l'Islamisme" by Caussin de
Perceval; J. Asiatique, April 1843. translated into English as "Notes
on the Arab Calendar Before Islam" in "Islamic Culture" vol 21, April
1947 (p. 135 - 153).
<<
Procopius who tells us at a meeting of the Roman Generals convened at
Dara by Belisarius, at 541 A.D., to discuss a plan of campaign, two
officers who commanded a corps formed of Syrian troops declared that
they could not march with the main army against the town of Nisibius,
alleging that their abscence would leave Syria and Phoenicia an easy
prey to the raids of the Almondar Arabs (al-Mundhir III). Belisarius
showed these two officers that their fears were groundless, because
they were nearing the summer solstice, a time when the pagan Arabs
used to devote to the practice of their religion, abstaining from any
bellicose act whatsoever.
Evidently this refers to the time of pilgrimage, for it was the only
time of the year when the Arabs had two consecutive holy months ; in
fact there may have been three: Dhu'l-Qa`da, Dhu'l-Ḥijja and Muḥarram.
The pilgrimage held in the 129th year of the nasi (according to the
above table) fell in fact, on June 22, 451 A.D., precisely at the
summer solstice.
...
>>
Procopius' passage is found in "De Bello Persico," lib. ii. cap. xvi.
Belisarius was sent to defend the eastern portion of the Roman Empire
against the attacks of Chosroes (or Nushirvan), King of Persia.
>
> Literary evidence in pre-Islamic Arabia is restricted mainly to short
> accounts, usually of a business nature (there is only one example of
> "literature," dating to the first century CE, written in Ancient South
> Arabian script), indicating that "literary" compositions were
you are refering to the Ḥimyari (not Classical Arabic) poem, not fully
deciphered. there is also the shorter En Avdat (Negev) Nabataean two
liner poem in Old Classical Arabic a little later "88 CE - 125 CE, not
later than 150 CE"), better read, in Nabataean script, the ancestor of
Arabic script, mentioned in one of the articles.
> transmitted orally. Papyrus, leather, and parchment are not documented
> archaeologically, nor is writing in ink.
but the reed-pen, qalam, is mentioned in the Qur'an. at any rate, the
Qur'an was compiled *after* the earliest surviving Arabic payri from
Egypt. the Arab conquest was in full gear when the Qur'an was
compiled, even by traditional accounts. there are letters attributed
to the Prophet, though most scholars tend to reject them out of hand a
few support their authenticity on paleographical grounds. probably
some at least are forgeries. there is an archaeometrist friend of mine
in Turkey who advocates C-14 dating them, but the museum authorities
(and official religious ones) refused. I made a pitch in a workshop
sponsored by him supporting the idea.
>
> That liturgical practices of Jews and Christians in the urban centers,
> on the other hand, involved some scribal activity is supposed (but as
> yet there is no hard evidence). Islamic tradition attests a number of
> people able to read and write in Mecca and Medina, and they most
> likely would have been trained by members of the Jewish and Christian
> communities, "or may even have been part of them" [Stein 2009, 273].
> Also, there were many Arab converts to Judaiam in the sixth century,
mist seem to be converts, certainly in Yemen. recent DNA studies
support Yemeni Jews being of mixed Arab and Palestinian Jewish
ancestry. the Falashas of Ethiopia turn out to be all converts.
Yusuf B Gursey
quote him and I'll probably agree, but quote him first. I have never
heard of this.
> And Werner Diem published a very detailed study of all the available
> early materials in Orientalia in several articles in 1971-72.
>
>
>
>
>
> > they are not due to differences in dialect. the alif was as /ā/ was
> > not in general circulation, the oldest Qur'ans have very few of them.
> > a early Umayyad Caliph added the alif's later, and irregularly (many
> > words have been spelt with and without alif). there are also different
> > scribal traditions extant as to the number of alif's in the Qur'an. my
> > Turkish editions have more than the current Egyptian (al-'Azhar)
> > standard edition. in many editions, the alif was ommitted on purpose
> > because there was disagreement as to whether a word should be
> > pronounced with /a/ or /ā/. such is the case in the opening Surah as
> > to the word ملك <mlk> is usually written without alif because the
> > Warsh reading (in N. Africa) read it as malik "king" and the Ḥafṣ
> > reading (most of the Muslim world) read it as mālik ("possesor, lord,
> > king"; the word refers to God) {the Turkish edition takes a stand,
> > writing the alif for mālik}. outside of the Qur'an the alif is
> > ommitted in الله allāh and الرحمن al-raḥmān ("the Compassionate", used
> > only of God; it dominates the early Meccan surahs), the second most
> > common word for God, and إله 'ilāh "deity. these were considered taboo
> > words, too sacred to be tinkered with. for some reason, the alif is
> > also ommitted in some common demostratives, but there is no evidence
> > that this is a problem of dialect.
>
> Theological disputes concerning a handful of individual words are
> irrelevant to the general practice.
but that is all the words (and a few demonstratives) in Classical
Arabic that are without the alif, i.e. where the /ā/ is regularly
written with the dagger alif. there may be some manuscripts where the
alif is ommitted out of dialectial variation, but they didn't make it
into Classical Arabic. of course, there are probably be a few words
that are pronounced with both /a/ and /ā/, but they would be written
either without alif or with alif. the only dialectical feature is the
use of waw to represent alif, with a dagger alif put on top of it.
this practice was acassionally continued outside of the Qur'an, but
the usual practice outside of the Qur'an was to write them with alif.
Yusuf B Gursey
the article neglected the Ethiopic words (whether or not ultimately
Aramaic or Greek) pertaining to Christianity in the Qur'an. the word
for "the Gospel" in Arabic is al-'injīl , from Ethiopic wangel ,
ultimately Greek, of course. the Ethiopians (Abraha, and for a very
short while his sons) established a Christian kingdom in Yemen which
collapsed (and became a vassal of Persia) just before Muhammad.
António Marques
> there are letters attributed to the Prophet, though most scholars tend to
> reject them out of hand a few support their authenticity on
> paleographical grounds. probably some at least are forgeries. there is an
> archaeometrist friend of mine in Turkey who advocates C-14 dating them,
> but the museum authorities (and official religious ones) refused. I made
> a pitch in a workshop sponsored by him supporting the idea.
I don't know, but given the impreciseness of C-14 dating (I haven't followed
any recent developments) and the fact that it can only point to the age of
the substrate but not the writing itself, is it really worth it?
> the Falashas of Ethiopia turn out to be all converts.
You mean, the hypothesis that they are judaising christians taken to the
extreme, and that their scripture was recreated from christian material?
António Marques
It doesn't look to me as if phonology and phonotaxis played any role in
orthographical choices (outside final devoicing).
Yusuf B Gursey
> Yusuf B Gursey wrote (20-09-2010 18:02):
>
> > there are letters attributed to the Prophet, though most scholars tend to
> > reject them out of hand a few support their authenticity on
> > paleographical grounds. probably some at least are forgeries. there is an
> > archaeometrist friend of mine in Turkey who advocates C-14 dating them,
> > but the museum authorities (and official religious ones) refused. I made
> > a pitch in a workshop sponsored by him supporting the idea.
>
> I don't know, but given the impreciseness of C-14 dating (I haven't followed
> any recent developments) and the fact that it can only point to the age of
well it can be late medieval or 7th cent. I think it is worth it. the
early Qur'an codices themselves don't lend themselves to that much of
an uncertainity so C-14 dating of them may not be worth it.
> the substrate but not the writing itself, is it really worth it?
>
> > the Falashas of Ethiopia turn out to be all converts.
>
> You mean, the hypothesis that they are judaising christians taken to the
> extreme, and that their scripture was recreated from christian material?
I don't know that hypothesis, and i don't knwo about their scripture,
but what I read from fairly recent Jewish DNA studies they are locals.
Peter T. Daniels
> On Sep 20, 12:17 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Sep 20, 11:28 am, Yusuf B Gursey <y...@theworld.com> wrote:
> > > On Sep 20, 9:30 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > But the inadequacy of the Nabataean forebear was overcome by the 2nd
> > > > c. AH, when the consonant dots had become obligatory. And Arabic
> > > > orthography is by and large preferable to Hebrew/Aramaic orthography,
> > > > because all and only the long vowels are obligatorily indicated.
> > > > (Except in the handful of lexical items where the Qur'an text was
> > > > vocalized by people from a different dialect from that of those who
> > > > had established the consonantal framework -- also the origin of the
> > > > odd things that go on at the end of the word.)
>
> > > I had told you this before.
>
> > Sorry, but I'd prefer to trust Kees Versteegh.
>
> quote him and I'll probably agree, but quote him first. I have never
> heard of this.
The US publication of his *The Arabic Language* is from Columbia
University Press. It's now even out in paperback, though I had to buy
it as a hardcover.
> the usual practice outside of the Qur'an was to write them with alif.-
It's far, far more than dagger alif. This also explains the need to
devise the "diacritic" hamza for glottal stop, the ta marbuta, the
alif maksura, and the tanwin.
Peter T. Daniels
Unfortunately NYPL has not spent $300+ to acquire that nearly 600-page
volume. There appears to be a very great deal of interest in it.
Yusuf B Gursey
here is Enc. of Islam II "Lakhmids" (Irfan Shahid)
<<
Lakhmids , a pre-Islamic Arab dynasty of ʿIrāḳ that made al-Ḥīra
[q.v.] its capital and ruled it for some three centuries from ca. 300
A.D. to ca. 600 A.D. Strictly speaking, the dynasty should be called
the Naṣrids after their eponym, Naṣr, Lakhm [q.v.] being the tribe to
which they belonged. As semi-independent kings and as clients of the
Sāsānids, the Lakhmids were the dominant force in the political,
military, and cultural history of the Arabs during these three
centuries before the rise of Islam.
1. History.
The founder of the dynasty, whose floruit may be assigned to the last
quarter of the¶ 3rd century, was ʿAmr b. ʿAdī, the nephew of the
Tanūkhid king Djadhīma [q.v.]. It was he who made al-Ḥīra the Lakhmid
capital, whence he conquered far and wide in the Arabian Peninsula
and, according to the Arabic tradition, warred successfully against
Queen Zenobia of Palmyra. He appears as the protector of Manichaeism
after it was outlawed in Persia. He was succeeded by his son, Imru' al-
Ḳays, described in the famous al-Namāra inscription as “king of all
the Arabs”. He, too, was a warrior king who after conquests in Arabia
went over to the Romans, died in A.D. 328, and was buried at al-Namāra
in the province of Arabia. The defection of Imru' al-Ḳays to the
Romans resulted in the first interregnum in the history of the
Lakhmids. The sources speak of a certain Aws b. Ḳallām in the sixties
of the 4th century, and he is given various tribal affiliations, but
it is almost certain that the interregnum began long before the
sixties and that the Ghassānids played an important role in the
affairs of al-Ḥīra, now that more light has been shed on their early
history. Certainty cannot be predicated of the names and reigns of the
Lakhmid kings assigned by the Arabic tradition to this obscure period
in their history, sc. the 4th century.
The 5th century is much better documented in the Greek and Syriac
sources as well as the Arabic ones, which yield important data on
three Lakhmid kings. The first is al-Nuʿmān, nicknamed al-A`war (“the
one-eyed”), and also al-Sā'iḥ (“the wanderer”); according to the
Arabic tradition he earned the latter for his having renounced the
world. This is not improbable, since he is known to have visited the
Syrian saint, Simeon, between 413 and 420. His name is associated with
the building of the famous palace, al-Khawarnaḳ [q.v.], and with the
two divisions in the Lakhmid army known as al-Shahbāʾ and al-Dawsar.
He was succeeded by his son Mundhir, who is said to have reigned forty-
four years, possibly 418-52. He took part in the Byzantine-Persian war
of 421-2 and played an even more important role in the internal
affairs of Persia by his support of Bahrām Gūr for the throne. Little
is known about the Lakhmid kings that followed him, al-Aswad and
Mundhir II, but much is known about the warrior-king al-Nu`mān II. He
took part in the Byzantine-Persian war of the period. In 498 he was
beaten by the Byzantine commander Eugenius at Bithrapsos; in 502 he
advanced against Ḥarrān, where he was first beaten by the Romans and
then triumphed over them, but shortly after died of a battle-wound in
the vicinity of Circesium. A second short interregnum takes place in
this period, ca 500, associated with a certain Abū Yaʿfur.
...
2. Culture
...
Zoroastrian Persia was also the determining factor in the attitude of
the Lakhmids towards Christianity. The Sāsānids understandably frowned
on their adoption of a missionary religion with universalist claims,
especially after the conversion of their secular enemy, Rome, to that
religion. The second Lakhmid ruler, Imru' al-Ḳays, adopted
Christianity, which fact must at least partly explain his defection to
the Romans. Only the last Lakhmid king, al-Nu`mān, adopted it openly;
but since it was the Nestorian form of it, in opposition to the
Chalcedonian one adopted by Byzantium, it was acceptable to the
Sāsānids. And yet their capital, al-Ḥīra, became the great centre of
Arab Christianity and of its transmission to the Arabs of the
Peninsula. The city was adorned with churches and monasteries, was the
seat of a bishopric, and the refuge for many a persecuted
ecclesiastic.
Important as their role was in the political and military history of
the Arabs and of the Near East, it was their development of al-Ḥīra
itself as the great Arab urban centre in pre-Islamic times that must
be considered the major and enduring contribution of the Lakhmids. In
the 3rd century A.D., the Arab cities of Hatra, Edessa, and Palmyra
fell in rapid succession, and the rise of al-Ḥīra as the capital of
the Lakhmids, almost immediately after the fall of Palmyra, ensured a
certain continuity in Arab urban life in the Fertile Crescent.
...
>>
so one had Manichaean sympathies, one was devious and became a
christian, one had christian sympthies (I guess becasue he visited St.
Sergius), only one, the last, was openly Christian. the rest were
pagan.
Wikipedia also makes the mistake of calling it a christian kingdom,
although there was a signiifcant Christian presence. the Arab pagans
of the peninsula supported the Lakhmids and Persia against Christian
Byzantium and Christian yemen under Abraha. hence the pro-Byzantine
(Roman) passage in the sūrat al-Rūm ("Chapter of the Romans / Greeks)
in the Qur'an.
Yusuf B Gursey
> > either without alif or with alif. the only dialectical feature is the
> > use of waw to represent alif, with a dagger alif put on top of it.
> > this practice was acassionally continued outside of the Qur'an, but
> > the usual practice outside of the Qur'an was to write them with alif.-
>
> It's far, far more than dagger alif. This also explains the need to
> devise the "diacritic" hamza for glottal stop, the ta marbuta, the
> alif maksura, and the tanwin.
yes, the alif maqṣūra was pronounced as [ai] > [ē], you have that in
Chaim Rabin's "Ancient West Arabian". only later did it get to be
pronounced [ā] and some Qur'an reciters still pronounce it with
imāla , i.e. tending towards [ē], observing this rule only in the
pronounciation in the recitation of the Qur'an. as for the tanwīn, it
was articulated in all Old Arabic dialects. the orthography gives the
pausal pronounciation in the consonantal skeleton, but the context
pronounciation for the diacritics. there were some dialects that
articulated the the tā' marbūṭa in pause but these were not considered
part of Classical Arabic. there was no controversy in putting the
tanwīn into the Qur'an. the hamza was more controversial, as it did
reflect a dialect pronounciation. as for the alif in the accusative in
the tanwīn, that was a rule of pause, articulating it as [ā] that
persited for some time. the Modern Standard Arabic of Oman still
observes that rule, according to Clive Holes. the topic was
representation of long vowels, they were represented, but /ā/ in some
cases was subject to dialect influence. but it was written, be it wāw
or yā' . the topic was the represntation of long vowels in Arabic
script, some of the things you mention have nothing to do with vowels.
the only time a long vowel did not get represented was the case of the
dagger alif and that was handled correctly by my post. there was also
the Qur'anic orthography of "David" dāwūd as دَاوُدُ without the long
ū reresented and without hamza, but later some common people opted for
دَاءُودُ dā'ūd and it was spelled with hamza and with the long ū
represented for them.
Yusuf B Gursey
also in the name إصحق 'iṣḥāq there is adagger alif, in the word لكن
lākin, lākinna, but the Persians adopted the dialect pronounciation
ليكن <lykn> [lēkin] > [līkin]. also in the Proper name طه ṭāhā because
the name just reflects the "Mysterious Letters" ṭā' and hā
Yusuf B Gursey
I checked old posts and you did once claim that the dagger alif arose
out of dialect differences. it does not.
Matt Giwer
You are invited to recite the ancient inscriptions which describe the
monarchy as a monarchy with David or Solomon as the ruler.
You do not get to lower the goalposts simply because religious tradition is
involved.
--
With regard to human rights there is a decisive difference between what a
government does to its own citizens and what a country's military does to an
occupied people.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4278
http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/ Antisemitism a10
Mon Sep 20 23:14:36 EDT 2010
Matt Giwer
> On Sep 20, 1:22 am, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> On 09/19/2010 04:51 PM, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>> ...
>>> Masoretic Hebrew preonounciation is based on early first half first
>>> millenium CE Aramaic. Hberew at teh timeof the Septaugint
>>> distinguished two pronounciations of Heth the unvoiced pharyngeal
>>> fricative /ḥ/ and its velar (or uvular) equivalent /*kh*/ (i.e. /x/).
>>> a distinction was made (though less strongly attested for the
>>> Septaugint) between voiced pharyngeal fricative /`/ `ayin and its
>>> velar (or uvular) equivalent /*gh*/ Arabic ghayn, merging later into
>>> `ayin /`/. the orthography does not make the distinction between the
>>> velar (uvular) and pharyngeal pairs. the pharyngeal pronounciations
>>> survived (the Israeli Hebrew pronounciationof Heth with an uvular
>>> pronounciation is an innovation, not a survival).
>> OR
>> This "hebrew" is an attempt to create an "original" for the Septuagint to be
>> a translation of but different people did different parts over decades. Thus
>> these "differences" arise solely from "knowing" the modern meaning and
>> imposing it upon the old script.
>> If you think this is strange consider what Trekkies have done with the
>> original series.
>> So many of the "problems" understanding the original are as easily attributed
>> to the inventor's variations not becoming the common usage.
> whatever, it's your pre-concieved notions.
Far from preconceived it is the only rational framework I can find to explain
what we have. Nothing else I have come across can explain it all.
But if you can explain the known evidence with a different theory please feel
free to present it. Keep in mind religious tradition is not evidence and
arguing towards a conclusion is a logical fallacy.
Please post your theory.
--
One of every five Israelis is a terrorist.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4283
http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/sewer-bible.phtml a15
Mon Sep 20 23:17:07 EDT 2010
Yusuf B Gursey
there are numerous inscriptions with a language very similar to
Biblical Hebrew. the early books of the Bible exhibit archaicisms in
the language that preclude a later invetion.
Yusuf B Gursey
> On 09/20/2010 01:35 AM, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>
> > On Sep 20, 1:10 am, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> >> On 09/19/2010 02:49 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>> A better question is whether someone from Maccabees time could
> >>> understand someone from Monarchy time -- a span of nearly a millennium
> >>> works enormous changes on a language.
> >> The monarchy is a myth which first appears in the Septuagint. There is no
> >> evidence for it any more than there is for Adam or Abraham or Moses.
> > NO! it is attested in several ancient inscriptions.
>
> You are invited to recite the ancient inscriptions which describe the
> monarchy as a monarchy with David or Solomon as the ruler.
the Tell Dan inscription was discussed in soc.history.ancient ; it
clearly identifies Judea as being founded by David. archaeological
evidence shows that it was not as extensive or the power claimed to be
in the Bible.
DKleinecke
In the Qur'an (at least in my favorite copy) there are also diacritics
for what you might call "dagger-i" and "dagger-u". I mean long i and
long u unwritten in the consonantal text. They are rare but real.
It is my understanding that no definitive discussion of the diacritics
used ih Qur'ans exists, neither in Arabic or any western language. The
last time I looked the Unicode people admitted that they had not
accommodated the Qur'an.
Yusuf B Gursey
the /u/ in -hu and IIRC the /i/ in -hi (the oblique case of the 3rd
pers. pronoun, exprssed as a suffix) are frequently lengthened. there
is also in some rhyme schemes for the lengthening of the final case
ending (while dropping the nunation). different codices have different
conventions or signs for indicating obligatory pause (this is the
Qur'anic equivalent of a comma, sometimes it affects meaning), and non-
obligatory pause.
> It is my understanding that no definitive discussion of the diacritics
> used ih Qur'ans exists, neither in Arabic or any western language. The
> last time I looked the Unicode people admitted that they had not
> accommodated the Qur'an.
there are some signs available in UNICODE that represent these
conditions, but they may not be all the ones that are used in all
scribal traditions or modern publications.
António Marques
I thought that was the kind of stuff you are interested in.
> but what I read from fairly recent Jewish DNA studies they are locals.
It does look like it. But then again, it doesn't mean they weren't founded
by migrants that 1) had left Palestine earlier than other jewish groups, 2)
were absorbed by local converts.
Harlan Messinger
Pulling a far-fetched scenario out of thin air to shore up a conspiracy
theory is not a rational approach to dealing one's lack of information
(or one's decision to reject the information that's available because he
prefers one that will shore up his conspiracy theory).
> But if you can explain the known evidence with a different theory please feel
> free to present it. Keep in mind religious tradition is not evidence
Neither are conspiracy theories.
Yusuf B Gursey
> Yusuf B Gursey wrote (20-09-2010 20:30):
>
> > On Sep 20, 1:51 pm, António Marques<antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
> >> Yusuf B Gursey wrote (20-09-2010 18:02):
> >>> the Falashas of Ethiopia turn out to be all converts.
>
> >> You mean, the hypothesis that they are judaising christians taken to
> >> the extreme, and that their scripture was recreated from christian
> >> material?
>
> > I don't know that hypothesis, and i don't knwo about their scripture,
>
> I thought that was the kind of stuff you are interested in.
I missed out on that one.
>
> > but what I read from fairly recent Jewish DNA studies they are locals.
>
> It does look like it. But then again, it doesn't mean they weren't founded
> by migrants that 1) had left Palestine earlier than other jewish groups, 2)
> were absorbed by local converts.
well, then the absorption was so complete that it overwhelmed the
Levantine contribution entirely, so as not to show up on the DNA
survey.
António Marques
> On Sep 21, 7:08 am, António Marques<antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
>> Yusuf B Gursey wrote (20-09-2010 20:30):
>>
>>> On Sep 20, 1:51 pm, António Marques<antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
>>>> Yusuf B Gursey wrote (20-09-2010 18:02):
>>>>> the Falashas of Ethiopia turn out to be all converts.
>>
>>>> You mean, the hypothesis that they are judaising christians taken to
>>>> the extreme, and that their scripture was recreated from christian
>>>> material?
>>
>>> I don't know that hypothesis, and i don't knwo about their scripture,
>>
>> I thought that was the kind of stuff you are interested in.
>
> I missed out on that one.
Can't find where I originally saw the idea discussed at some length. The
wikipedia says:
# Steven Kaplan, On the Changes in the Research of Ethiopian Jewry, Pe'amim
58 (1994), pages 137-150. (Hebrew)
http://jic.tau.ac.il/moreshet/reshuma.asp?key=1000104
# Paul B. Henze. Layers of Time. Palgrave, 2000. p. 55.
>>> but what I read from fairly recent Jewish DNA studies they are locals.
>>
>> It does look like it. But then again, it doesn't mean they weren't founded
>> by migrants that 1) had left Palestine earlier than other jewish groups, 2)
>> were absorbed by local converts.
>
> well, then the absorption was so complete that it overwhelmed the
> Levantine contribution entirely, so as not to show up on the DNA
> survey.
On the DNA surveyed by (the) DNA survey(s).
Yusuf B Gursey
> Yusuf B Gursey wrote (21-09-2010 17:54):
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 21, 7:08 am, António Marques<antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
> >> Yusuf B Gursey wrote (20-09-2010 20:30):
>
> >>> On Sep 20, 1:51 pm, António Marques<antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
> >>>> Yusuf B Gursey wrote (20-09-2010 18:02):
> >>>>> the Falashas of Ethiopia turn out to be all converts.
>
> >>>> You mean, the hypothesis that they are judaising christians taken to
> >>>> the extreme, and that their scripture was recreated from christian
> >>>> material?
>
> >>> I don't know that hypothesis, and i don't knwo about their scripture,
>
> >> I thought that was the kind of stuff you are interested in.
>
> > I missed out on that one.
>
> Can't find where I originally saw the idea discussed at some length. The
> wikipedia says:
>
> # Steven Kaplan, On the Changes in the Research of Ethiopian Jewry, Pe'amim
>
> # Paul B. Henze. Layers of Time. Palgrave, 2000. p. 55.
>
found also this on the website:
37.^ a b Richard Pankhurst, "The Falashas, or Judaic Ethiopians, in
Their Christian Ethiopian Setting", African Affairs, Vol. 91 (October
1992), pp. 567-582 at p. 567
Yusuf B Gursey
> On Sep 21, 1:44 pm, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Yusuf B Gursey wrote (21-09-2010 17:54):
>
> > > On Sep 21, 7:08 am, António Marques<antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
> > >> Yusuf B Gursey wrote (20-09-2010 20:30):
>
> > >>> On Sep 20, 1:51 pm, António Marques<antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
> > >>>> Yusuf B Gursey wrote (20-09-2010 18:02):
> > >>>>> the Falashas of Ethiopia turn out to be all converts.
>
> > >>>> You mean, the hypothesis that they are judaising christians taken to
> > >>>> the extreme, and that their scripture was recreated from christian
> > >>>> material?
>
> > >>> I don't know that hypothesis, and i don't knwo about their scripture,
>
> > >> I thought that was the kind of stuff you are interested in.
>
> > > I missed out on that one.
>
> > Can't find where I originally saw the idea discussed at some length. The
> > wikipedia says:
>
> > # Steven Kaplan, On the Changes in the Research of Ethiopian Jewry, Pe'amim
> > 58 (1994), pages 137-150. (Hebrew)http://jic.tau.ac.il/moreshet/reshuma.asp?key=1000104
>
> > # Paul B. Henze. Layers of Time. Palgrave, 2000. p. 55.
>
> found also this on the website:
>
> 37.^ a b Richard Pankhurst, "The Falashas, or Judaic Ethiopians, in
> Their Christian Ethiopian Setting", African Affairs, Vol. 91 (October
> 1992), pp. 567-582 at p. 567
>
http://www.jstor.org/pss/722990
Christopher Ingham
> On Sep 20, 4:22 am, Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> BTW you are stating the opinions of the two articles you later give
> reference as if all of it were well established.
>
September 14 at 4:22 am. Another message of mine that appeared on
September 13 at 4:13 pm in this thread contained the words, "this
schema evidently is not definitive." You actually replied to that post
at, 4:33 pm.
>
> > There was triglossia in sixth-century Arabia, comprising local
> > dialects and two supraregional languages, ESA and ECA. The situation
>
> BTW the articles mean by ESA "Early Standard Arabic" (not "Epigraphic
> South Arabian" for which it usually stands for) and ECA "Early
> Classical Arabic";
>
misunderstanding of a standard abbreviation to me.
>
> <snip>
>
> > Literary evidence in pre-Islamic Arabia is restricted mainly to short
> > accounts, usually of a business nature (there is only one example of
> > "literature," dating to the first century CE, written in Ancient South
> > Arabian script), indicating that "literary" compositions were
>
> you are refering to the Ḥimyari (not Classical Arabic) poem, not fully
> deciphered.
>
Yemen. A critical re-evaluation," _Semitica et Classica_1.1 (2008):
203-12), "medieval 'Himyaritic' appears to be the final stage of
Sabaic, the language of the kingdoms of Saba’ and Himyar."
Christopher Ingham
Yusuf B Gursey
wrote:
> On Sep 20, 1:02 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <y...@theworld.com> wrote:> On Sep 20, 4:22 am, Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > BTW you are stating the opinions of the two articles you later give
> > reference as if all of it were well established.
>
> You are confused. I posted the message you are responding to on
> September 14 at 4:22 am. Another message of mine that appeared on
> September 13 at 4:13 pm in this thread contained the words, "this
> schema evidently is not definitive." You actually replied to that post
> at, 4:33 pm.
>
> > > There was triglossia in sixth-century Arabia, comprising local
> > > dialects and two supraregional languages, ESA and ECA. The situation
>
> > BTW the articles mean by ESA "Early Standard Arabic" (not "Epigraphic
> > South Arabian" for which it usually stands for) and ECA "Early
> > Classical Arabic";
>
> By "ESA" I meant "Early Standard Arabic." Please don't attribute
> misunderstanding of a standard abbreviation to me.
I just wanted to clarify it to the readers of sci.lang
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > Literary evidence in pre-Islamic Arabia is restricted mainly to short
> > > accounts, usually of a business nature (there is only one example of
> > > "literature," dating to the first century CE, written in Ancient South
> > > Arabian script), indicating that "literary" compositions were
>
> > you are refering to the Ḥimyari (not Classical Arabic) poem, not fully
> > deciphered.
>
> According to P. Stein ("The 'Himyaritic” language in pre-Islamic
> Yemen. A critical re-evaluation," _Semitica et Classica_1.1 (2008):
> 203-12), "medieval 'Himyaritic' appears to be the final stage of
> Sabaic, the language of the kingdoms of Saba’ and Himyar."
yes, I had read a pointof view that Sabaic becomes Himyaritic and then
becomes the Yemeni colloquial of the mountains of the present day, but
that does not make sense to me. the medieval Arab authors treat it as
a divergent Arabic dialect, and it has a pre-posed article like
Arabic, unlike Sabaic whihc has a post-posed one. but I'll look at the
article.
>
> Christopher Ingham
Peter T. Daniels
> > wrote:
> > > There was triglossia in sixth-century Arabia, comprising local
> > > dialects and two supraregional languages, ESA and ECA. The situation
>
> > BTW the articles mean by ESA "Early Standard Arabic" (not "Epigraphic
> > South Arabian" for which it usually stands for) and ECA "Early
> > Classical Arabic";
>
> By "ESA" I meant "Early Standard Arabic." Please don't attribute
> misunderstanding of a standard abbreviation to me.
By ESA, Semitists don't mean "Early Standard Arabic," but "Epigraphic
South Arabian" -- but now that the cursive documents have appeared,
ESA is widely replaced by OSA, Old South Arabian.
mb
spoken language, could someone who
> > understood ancient spoken Hebrew at the time of king David understand
> > the spoken Hebrew of the people who compiled the Talmuds in the Near
> > East during the time of the Roman Empire?
> > Was the difference between the two not much more or even less
> > than that between ancient and modern Greek?
>
> Perhaps a bit more like one of the Anatolian dialects compared to ancient Greek.
> > Or were they about as distant or more distant than Old English and
> > Modern English?
Were they pretty much two different languages, that
> > were given the same name 'Hebrew', because they may have both been
> > partially spoken in the same geographic location, but at different
> > times, and not really mutually intelligible?
>
> The simple fact is there are not enough samples of the "ancient" dialects to
> tell. To establish a fact we would have to have samples from all over the
> region at several different times say a century or two apart. There are not
> sufficient samples to do this. In fact the samples are widely scattered in
> both geography and time. No conclusions are possible unless one is arguing
> towards a particular conclusion -- which the believers are certainly doing.
>
> > Could an acquaintance of a compiler of the Mishnah or Gemara
> > understand the spoken language of someone who lived during the time of
> > King David? Or did Hebrew not change very much from then until the
> > Gemaras were compiled because the original Hebrew language had been
> > written down?
>
> David is also a myth. The Septuagint appears in history before any "hebrew"
> appears in any document. There is no reason to think they were dealing with
> any "ancient" language regardless of what it is called.
>
> > Did Hebrew even exist as a regularly used spoken language when the
> > Mishnah was written, or had Aramaic replaced everyday speech entirely
> > during that time period? Have the differences between Hebrew and
> > Aramaic in the past been exaggerated to me? Is Hebrew and Aramaic
> > only about as distant from each other as classical and modern Greek?
>
> As there is no evidence "hebrew" was ever a spoken language it is absurd to
> talk about it being replaced. First the evidence of it as a spoken language
> must be presented before any change to another spoken language can be
> discussed rationally.
>
> > Was the character system used for the Mishnah an attempt to make the
> > Hebrew script look more like Aramaic, with Hebrew and Aramaic being
> > two different phonetic languages, but Old Hebrew and Gemara Hebrew
> > remaining basically the same, or was there as severe a drift between
> > the two time periods in the two Hebrews as there was between Hebrew
> > and Aramaic?
>
> Get with the tradition here. The Torah is to be a perfect copy. I single
> error means the scribe must start over. This tradition cannot have existed
> prior to the adoption of the Aramaic script.
>
> > It seems to me doubtful that I could get a straight or true answer to
> > the question on usenet or even informative links here but I though I
> > might try anyway.
>
> For example it is not unusual for a language to lack indefinite articles but
> have only definite articles. For example The Thee himself! In "hebrew" it is
> Ha in Greek Ho. So strange "hebrew" is like a pidgin Greek -- Aramaic adapted
> to Greek.
>
> --
> Fung Shua is Chinese for People Will Believe Anything.
> -- The Iron Webmaster, 4274
> http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/is-seg.phtmla14
> Mon Sep 20 00:21:26 EDT 2010
Matt Giwer
As I said when discussing it, EVEN IF it does in fact mean what believers
want it to mean it does not say a thing about the monarchy believers want to
have existed. It definitely says nothing about Judea much less who founded it.
The archaeological evidence shows absolutely nothing about this imaginary
kingdom. A total absence of evidence does not mean you can cut it down the
below the giggle level. It means you have to start from the bottom up to show
something existed in the first place.
We have been over this. The requirement is the same as has been done for
Egypt. Reconstruct what it really was without any reference to the Septuagint
stories.
--
The whole world is against Israel.
And for good reason.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4270
http://www.giwersworld.org/disinfo/occupied-2.phtml a6
Tue Sep 21 19:04:15 EDT 2010
Christopher Ingham
Arabic. ESA is also used for Educated Spoken Arabic (alternately
Formal Spoken Arabic).
Christopher Ingham
Matt Giwer
> On Sep 20, 11:19 pm, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> On 09/20/2010 01:37 AM, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>>> On Sep 20, 1:22 am, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>>> On 09/19/2010 04:51 PM, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>> Masoretic Hebrew preonounciation is based on early first half first
>>>>> millenium CE Aramaic. Hberew at teh timeof the Septaugint
>>>>> distinguished two pronounciations of Heth the unvoiced pharyngeal
>>>>> fricative /ḥ/ and its velar (or uvular) equivalent /*kh*/ (i.e. /x/).
>>>>> Masoretic Hebrew only has the unvoiced pharyngeal fricative /ḥ/.. also
>>>>> a distinction was made (though less strongly attested for the
>>>>> Septaugint) between voiced pharyngeal fricative /`/ `ayin and its
>>>>> velar (or uvular) equivalent /*gh*/ Arabic ghayn, merging later into
>>>>> `ayin /`/. the orthography does not make the distinction between the
>>>>> velar (uvular) and pharyngeal pairs. the pharyngeal pronounciations
>>>>> survived (the Israeli Hebrew pronounciationof Heth with an uvular
>>>>> pronounciation is an innovation, not a survival).
>>>> OR
>>>> This "hebrew" is an attempt to create an "original" for the Septuagint to be
>>>> these "differences" arise solely from "knowing" the modern meaning and
>>>> imposing it upon the old script.
>>>> If you think this is strange consider what Trekkies have done with the
>>>> original series.
>>>> So many of the "problems" understanding the original are as easily attributed
>>>> to the inventor's variations not becoming the common usage.
>>> whatever, it's your pre-concieved notions.
>> Far from preconceived it is the only rational framework I can find to explain
>> what we have. Nothing else I have come across can explain it all.
> there are numerous inscriptions with a language very similar to
> Biblical Hebrew. the early books of the Bible exhibit archaicisms in
> the language that preclude a later invetion.
Without a knowledge of a previous language in great detail declaring a thing
an anachronism does not differ from hand-waving.
>> But if you can explain the known evidence with a different theory please feel
>> free to present it. Keep in mind religious tradition is not evidence and
>> arguing towards a conclusion is a logical fallacy.
>> Please post your theory.
I see you have no theory to explain the available facts. Until you do please
have the courtesy not to attack mine without an alternate explanation. I have
never claimed mine is the correct explanation. I have only said it is the best
available.
Matt Giwer
> Matt Giwer wrote:
>> On 09/20/2010 01:37 AM, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>>> On Sep 20, 1:22 am, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>>> On 09/19/2010 04:51 PM, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>> Masoretic Hebrew preonounciation is based on early first half first
>>>>> millenium CE Aramaic. Hberew at teh timeof the Septaugint
>>>>> distinguished two pronounciations of Heth the unvoiced pharyngeal
>>>>> Masoretic Hebrew only has the unvoiced pharyngeal fricative /ḥ/.. also
What is it you consider to be far-fetched or a conspiracy? It is clear that
centuries of a "christian" scholars started their work knowing the bible was
true and explaining everything in terms of that truth. It is hardly a
conspiracy rather simply a fact. In fact failing to confirm the religious
traditions would be nearly the same as heresy for believers.
>> But if you can explain the known evidence with a different theory please
>> feel free to present it. Keep in mind religious tradition is not evidence
> Neither are conspiracy theories.
>> and
>> arguing towards a conclusion is a logical fallacy.
>> Please post your theory.
You also do not have a theory. Please be the first to explain how written
materials could have survived in a land where there is no evidence of a
scribal culture until more than a century after the arrival of Alexander. If
you can do that you are off to a good start. Alternatively you can show
evidence of a scribal culture starting in the 11th c. BC and make your
reputation in the field.
Yusuf B Gursey
> On 09/20/2010 11:45 PM, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 20, 11:16 pm, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> >> On 09/20/2010 01:35 AM, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>
> >>> On Sep 20, 1:10 am, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 09/19/2010 02:49 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>>>> A better question is whether someone from Maccabees time could
> >>>>> understand someone from Monarchy time -- a span of nearly a millennium
> >>>>> works enormous changes on a language.
> >>>> The monarchy is a myth which first appears in the Septuagint. There is no
> >>>> evidence for it any more than there is for Adam or Abraham or Moses.
> >>> NO! it is attested in several ancient inscriptions.
>
> >> You are invited to recite the ancient inscriptions which describe the
> >> monarchy as a monarchy with David or Solomon as the ruler.
>
> > the Tell Dan inscription was discussed in soc.history.ancient ; it
> > clearly identifies Judea as being founded by David. archaeological
> > evidence shows that it was not as extensive or the power claimed to be
> > in the Bible.
>
> As I said when discussing it, EVEN IF it does in fact mean what believers
> want it to mean it does not say a thing about the monarchy believers want to
> have existed. It definitely says nothing about Judea much less who founded it.
whatever, read my previous posts and draw your own conclusion
Yusuf B Gursey
archaicism.
read about semitics.
>
> >> But if you can explain the known evidence with a different theory please feel
> >> free to present it. Keep in mind religious tradition is not evidence and
> >> arguing towards a conclusion is a logical fallacy.
> >> Please post your theory.
>
> I see you have no theory to explain the available facts. Until you do please
> have the courtesy not to attack mine without an alternate explanation. I have
> never claimed mine is the correct explanation. I have only said it is the best
> available.
I don't attack your theory as I don't care about it.
>
Yusuf B Gursey
> On Sep 19, 11:55 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 19, 11:51 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 19, 7:35 pm, Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 19, 4:51 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <y...@theworld.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Sep 19, 2:14 pm, Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net>
> > > > > wrote:
.
>
> > > > On a related note, Deepak Chopra just appeared on ABC World News and
> > > > answered in the affirmative when asked again if he really thought it
> > > > possible that the Koran was penned by Jewish scribes (his most recent
> > > > novel has this senario). He bases this not new idea on the fact that
> > > > Medina in the seventh century had many Jewish scholars, and that Arab
> > > > tribesmen at that time would have been illiterate. He also reiterated
> > > > that he means no disrespect to Muslims.
>
> > > Does he explain why they would use an inadequate form of Nabataean
> > > script (where so many letterforms had merged) instead of a Hebrew
> > > script, which with considerably fewer diacritics was used for
> > > centuries (a bit later) for Judeo-Arabic?-
>
> > Or, for that matter, instead of the South Semitic script that had been
> > used for centuries for Old North Arabian throughout the deserts west
> > and north of Mecca and Medina, which had a letter for every consonant!
>
> that's brought up as one of the minor mysteries of Islam, as to why
> they adopted the Arabic script instead of South Semitic script. my
> guess is that South Arabian civilization had collapsed (the last
> Sabaic inscription of the Ethiopian rulers of Yemen is just before
> Muhammad) and the Arabs of Hijaz were looking north. Arab tradition
there is a curious Arabic inscription written in both Arabic and South
Arabian scripts after Islam. the SA inscription modifies the
conventions of South Arabian script to include the representation of
the consonantal element in diphthongs (acc. to the article). the
language is Arabic, not Himyari, as evidenced by the al- article
(instead of Himyari an- or am-)
> attributes the introduction of the Arabic script into Arabia to the
> Lakhmids (S. Iraq. sattelite kingdom of the Sasanids; and some
> Western scholars argue for a Lakhmid origin of the Arabic script - in
> its transformation from Nabataean). and the Ghassanids (phylarchs of
> the Byzantines, IIRC eventually endowed with the title "king") of
> Southern Greater Syria also used the Arabic script on occassion. the
> two kingdoms (clients of rival powers) both promoted poets from
> Arabia. Muhammad's poet was previously a poet of the Ghassanid court.
>
> two pre-Islamic Arabic inscriptions from northern Arabia (within the
> borders of present day Saudi Arabia have been found:
>
> http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/sakaka2.html
>
> Two Pre-Islamic Arabic Inscriptions From Sakakah, Saudi Arabia
>
> also writing was used for contracts: al-Baqara 2:282 (Yusuf Ali)
>
> Al-Baqara
>
> O ye who believe! when ye deal with each other, in transactions
> involving future obligations in a fixed period of time, reduce them to
> writing. Let a scribe write: down faithfully as between the parties:
> let not the scribe refuse to write as Allah has taught him, so let him
> write. ...
>
> يَـٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوٓاْ إِذَا تَدَايَنتُم بِدَيۡنٍ إِلَىٰٓ
> أَجَلٍ۬ مُّسَمًّ۬ى فَٱڪۡتُبُوهُۚ وَلۡيَكۡتُب بَّيۡنَكُمۡ ڪَاتِبُۢ
> بِٱلۡعَدۡلِۚ وَلَا يَأۡبَ كَاتِبٌ أَن يَكۡتُبَ ڪَمَا عَلَّمَهُ
> ٱللَّهُۚ فَلۡيَڪۡتُبۡ
> ...
Yusuf B Gursey
>
> http://tinyurl.com/SAArabic
>
epigraphically dated to 9th cent.CE / 3rd cent. AH
Harlan Messinger
That hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people colluded to turn
themselves into a Jewish people that theretofore didn't exist.
> It is clear that
> centuries of a "christian" scholars started their work knowing the bible was
> true and explaining everything in terms of that truth. It is hardly a
> conspiracy rather simply a fact. In fact failing to confirm the religious
> traditions would be nearly the same as heresy for believers.
>
>>> But if you can explain the known evidence with a different theory please
>>> feel free to present it. Keep in mind religious tradition is not evidence
>
>> Neither are conspiracy theories.
>
>>> and
>>> arguing towards a conclusion is a logical fallacy.
>
>>> Please post your theory.
>
> You also do not have a theory.
I don't? Fascinating. This shows a propensity on your part to make bold
assertions for which you have no basis.
> Please be the first to explain how written
> materials could have survived in a land where there is no evidence of a
> scribal culture until more than a century after the arrival of Alexander.
Would you like to try to rewrite your sentence without the built-in
fallacy of presuming your conclusion?
Peter T. Daniels
> there is a curious Arabic inscription written in both Arabic and South
> Arabian scripts after Islam. the SA inscription modifies the
> conventions of South Arabian script to include the representation of
> the consonantal element in diphthongs (acc. to the article). the
> language is Arabic, not Himyari, as evidenced by the al- article
> (instead of Himyari an- or am-)
>
> http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/5621/Publications/Early%20South%20Arabian-I...
Why does he (do you) think diphthongs were not notated with <w / y> in
SA inscriptions? See Hoefner, p. 10.
Rock inscriptions cannot be dated on physical grounds. The
"biscriptal" inscription could have been put there in 2000 CE.
António Marques
> there is a curious Arabic inscription written in both Arabic and South
> Arabian scripts after Islam (...)
That would be a form of OSA? For some reason I had thought it had been
replaced by arabic before islam.
António Marques
And while we're at it... is there any evidence for any ancestor of the MSA
languages (except of course for the MSA languages themselves, which seem not
to be derived from OSA)?
Yusuf B Gursey
> On Sep 22, 7:08 am, Yusuf B Gursey <y...@theworld.com> wrote:
>
> > there is a curious Arabic inscription written in both Arabic and South
> > Arabian scripts after Islam. the SA inscription modifies the
> > conventions of South Arabian script to include the representation of
> > the consonantal element in diphthongs (acc. to the article). the
> > language is Arabic, not Himyari, as evidenced by the al- article
> > (instead of Himyari an- or am-)
>
> >http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/5621/Publications/Early%20South%20Arabian-I...
>
> Why does he (do you) think diphthongs were not notated with <w / y> in
> SA inscriptions? See Hoefner, p. 10.
I thought they were, but the article says they were an innovation,
but the article says it was an innovation. so without checking I added
"acc. to the article"
Yusuf B Gursey
no it is not Old South Arabian, it is Classical Arabic, just written
in two different scripts. we know the script survived to write
Himyari, because the two later medieval authors from Yemen discuss it
and give the script (the surviving manuscripts are in garbled form,
because of later scribes, but good enough to have helped modern
scholars decipher the script). the South Semitic script survived in
Ethiopia, where it got modified from a purely consonantal script into
and abugida, with modfiying the letters to indicate vowels. the
originally "pure consonantal" graphemes got to represent the consonant
plus the vowel /a/, as in Indian scripts.
the title of the article is missleading since it calls it a
"bilingual", in reality it is monolingual Classical Arabic, just in
two different scripts.
Yusuf B Gursey
it was judged to be 9th cent based on epigraphy of the arabic version.
António Marques
That's very curious, the more given that the scripts are related. What could
have been the purpose in making a biscriptal inscription?
BTW, how is CA handled by the SA script? Transliterated? Phonetic? Are there
contemporary OSA inscrtptions, or is it a mystery like the cypriot one?
Yusuf B Gursey
both scripts have the same consonant inventory (the SA script has an
extra sibilant not existent in Arabic). there are no long vowels
Iindicated found in the Arabic sentence in question, Arabic but not in
SA so we don't know how it would be handled. but the alif of the
definite article which is not articulated as a glottal stop in Arabic
in that position is indicated as the glottal stop in the SA
inscription, so one may say that it is a transliteration of the
Arabic, or influenced by Arabic spelling conventions.
Yusuf B Gursey
the Cypriot syllabary is deciphered, except the earlier Eteo-Cypriot
ones that are undeciphered and not in Greek. nobody writes in the SA
script(s) anymore, but the Ethiopic abugidas (accomodating Old
Ethipiopic / Geez, Amharic, Tigrinya etc.) are derivates of the SA
abjad(s).
Peter T. Daniels
And anyone who knew Formal Sabaic letterforms would also know how to
imitate 9th-century epigraphy.
Peter T. Daniels
My guess is that a grad student who got tired of the stultifyingly
boring task of copying inscription after inscription that say
virtually nothing but "Kilroy was here" decided to pull a prank. Cf.
Piltdown Man. The author of the article is clearly incompetent.
Peter T. Daniels
Antonio referred to the mystery of the _origin_ of the Cypriote
sllabary.
You might also have mentioned that there are tens of thousands of Old
North Arabian graffiti -- "Kilroy was here" -- found throughout the
western and northern deserts of the Arabian peninsula, using informal
varieties of Epigraphic South Arabian script, in dialects clearly
closely related to or possibly ancestral to Classical Arabic. See M C
A Macdonald in the Woodard Encyc. and references there.
Yusuf B Gursey
OK.
António Marques
> On Sep 22, 11:23 am, Yusuf B Gursey<y...@theworld.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 22, 10:30 am, António Marques<antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
>>> Are there contemporary OSA inscrtptions, or is it a mystery like the
>>> cypriot one?
>>
>> the Cypriot syllabary is deciphered, except the earlier Eteo-Cypriot
>> ones that are undeciphered and not in Greek. nobody writes in the SA
>> script(s) anymore, but the Ethiopic abugidas (accomodating Old
>> Ethipiopic / Geez, Amharic, Tigrinya etc.) are derivates of the SA
>> abjad(s).-
>
> Antonio referred to the mystery of the _origin_ of the Cypriote
> sllabary.
I wasn't very clear. I was asking whether the SA script had fallen out of
use (if at all) long enough before the supposed biscriptal inscription that
it would be an enigma vaguely comparable to that of the Cypriot syllabary's
single specimen for the 1200-800 BC period.
But if there's the possibility that the biscriptal inscription is a hoax,
then I guess it is a likely one.
Yusuf B Gursey
as far as I know there are no known inscriptions in the ancestor of
the Modern South arabian Languages
Yusuf B Gursey
> Peter T. Daniels wrote (22-09-2010 16:39):
>
> > On Sep 22, 11:23 am, Yusuf B Gursey<y...@theworld.com> wrote:
> >> On Sep 22, 10:30 am, António Marques<antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
> >>> Are there contemporary OSA inscrtptions, or is it a mystery like the
> >>> cypriot one?
>
> >> the Cypriot syllabary is deciphered, except the earlier Eteo-Cypriot
> >> ones that are undeciphered and not in Greek. nobody writes in the SA
> >> script(s) anymore, but the Ethiopic abugidas (accomodating Old
> >> Ethipiopic / Geez, Amharic, Tigrinya etc.) are derivates of the SA
> >> abjad(s).-
>
> > Antonio referred to the mystery of the _origin_ of the Cypriote
> > sllabary.
>
> I wasn't very clear. I was asking whether the SA script had fallen out of
> use (if at all) long enough before the supposed biscriptal inscription that
> it would be an enigma vaguely comparable to that of the Cypriot syllabary's
> single specimen for the 1200-800 BC period.
as I said there is a list of SA signs by two independent Medieval
Arabic historians for Himyari in manuscripts, although the scribes
seem to have not copied the by scribes accurately they also mention
correctly that there were two types of scripts, one monumental, the
other for writing on palm stalks etc. and these lists were
instrumental in deciphering the SA script. they also claim to have
been able to read Sabaic inscriptions, which they mistoook for
Himyari, but they woudl at least have been able to read proper names.
António Marques
Thanks.
And of nothign else, in SE Arabia? How far back does the archeological
record go there?
Yusuf B Gursey
> Yusuf B Gursey wrote (22-09-2010 17:29):
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 22, 9:05 am, António Marques<antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
> >> António Marques wrote (22-09-2010 13:58):
>
> >>> Yusuf B Gursey wrote (22-09-2010 12:08):
>
> >>>> there is a curious Arabic inscription written in both Arabic and South
> >>>> Arabian scripts after Islam (...)
>
> >>> That would be a form of OSA? For some reason I had thought it had been
> >>> replaced by arabic before islam.
>
> >> And while we're at it... is there any evidence for any ancestor of the MSA
> >> languages (except of course for the MSA languages themselves, which seem not
> >> to be derived from OSA)?
>
> > as far as I know there are no known inscriptions in the ancestor of
> > the Modern South arabian Languages
>
there is the "Dhofar dipinti" which is in an area of MSA speech, I
don't think they have been fulluy deciphered or classified.
> Thanks.
> And of nothign else, in SE Arabia? How far back does the archeological
> record go there?
there is the Hasaitic inscriptions near the Gulf coast of Saudi
Arabia in a West Arabian (North Arabian, related to Arabic) dialect
but letter forms in the Southern variety , but it may be a colony, or
a non-native speech. MacDonald "THE LINGUISTIC MAP OF PRE-ISLAMIC
ARABIA" notes that the North Arabian article hn- is attested only in
theophoric names. I think they may go back a couple of centuries BCE.
Peter T. Daniels
Turns out, now that we have several thousand of those sticks -- which
are more like sawed-off broomsticks than palm stalks -- that the
cursive Sabaean looks very unlike the monumental; and the monumental
looks tolerably like the two mss. that Roediger used during his
decipherment. (I reproduced one of them in WWS.)
What I've never understood is why, when Himyaritic inscriptions were
discovered around 1835, they weren't immediately read on the basis of
the well-known Ethiopic script.
Yusuf B Gursey
so-called Himyaritic. after Himyaritic died down, anything everything
South Arabian and not Arabic was called "Himyaritic" by the Arabs.
> discovered around 1835, they weren't immediately read on the basis of
> the well-known Ethiopic script.
me too.
Yusuf B Gursey
though I read somewhere that some Ethiopic signs were derived froom
the Thamudic variety, dunno if that's true.
Peter T. Daniels
What they were called by the Arabs is irrelevant to the label they
were published under beginning in the late 1830s. In Roediger's
sources they were called "musnad."
> > discovered around 1835, they weren't immediately read on the basis of
> > the well-known Ethiopic script.
>
> me too.-
Yusuf B Gursey
the use of "Himyaritic" for "Sabaic" is due to a confusion by later
Arabs.
> sources they were called "musnad."
>
that's what Arabs called the monumental South Arabian script. there is
nothing wrong with calling it that.
Matt Giwer
> On Sep 20, 11:19 pm, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> On 09/20/2010 01:37 AM, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 20, 1:22 am, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>>> On 09/19/2010 04:51 PM, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>> Masoretic Hebrew preonounciation is based on early first half first
>>>>> millenium CE Aramaic. Hberew at teh timeof the Septaugint
>>>>> distinguished two pronounciations of Heth the unvoiced pharyngeal
>>>>> Masoretic Hebrew only has the unvoiced pharyngeal fricative /ḥ/.. also
>>>>> a distinction was made (though less strongly attested for the
>>>>> Septaugint) between voiced pharyngeal fricative /`/ `ayin and its
>>>>> velar (or uvular) equivalent /*gh*/ Arabic ghayn, merging later into
>>>>> `ayin /`/. the orthography does not make the distinction between the
>>>>> velar (uvular) and pharyngeal pairs. the pharyngeal pronounciations
>>>>> survived (the Israeli Hebrew pronounciationof Heth with an uvular
>>>>> pronounciation is an innovation, not a survival).
>>>> OR
>>>> This "hebrew" is an attempt to create an "original" for the Septuagint to be
>>>> these "differences" arise solely from "knowing" the modern meaning and
>>>> imposing it upon the old script.
>>>> If you think this is strange consider what Trekkies have done with the
>>>> original series.
>>>> So many of the "problems" understanding the original are as easily attributed
>>>> to the inventor's variations not becoming the common usage.
>>> whatever, it's your pre-concieved notions.
>>
>> Far from preconceived it is the only rational framework I can find to explain
>> what we have. Nothing else I have come across can explain it all.
>
> Biblical Hebrew. the early books of the Bible exhibit archaicisms in
> the language that preclude a later invetion.
You are invited to present the inscriptions which mention a biblical kingdom
of Israel with either David or Solomon or even Saul as the king.
>> But if you can explain the known evidence with a different theory please feel
>> free to present it. Keep in mind religious tradition is not evidence and
>> arguing towards a conclusion is a logical fallacy.
>>
>> Please post your theory.
Please post your theory.