info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
ilah and eloah
110 views
Skip to first unread message
mr
May 29, 2016, 9:29:23 AM5/29/16
to
ilah is cognate of elokh/eloah, right?
so which sound is closer to the original pronunciation?
how to make the feminine form of elokh?
so which sound is closer to the original pronunciation?
how to make the feminine form of elokh?
Peter T. Daniels
May 29, 2016, 10:15:56 AM5/29/16
to
Yusuf B Gursey
May 29, 2016, 10:23:44 AM5/29/16
to
On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 4:29:23 PM UTC+3, mr wrote:
> ilah is cognate of elokh/eloah, right?
>
Yes. Masoretic Hebrew has 'elo:(a)h (NOT with *kh*). The
> ilah is cognate of elokh/eloah, right?
>
(a) appears in the speech Masorites in certain circumstances
but it is not atymological.
> so which sound is closer to the original pronunciation?
>
-um / -un are case endings that change by
function in the sentence.
>
>
> how to make the feminine form of elokh?
the pagan period, I couldn't find *'elo:hA "goddess in the
Hebrew Bible.
Yusuf B Gursey
May 29, 2016, 10:25:57 AM5/29/16
to
Peter T. Daniels
May 29, 2016, 1:33:12 PM5/29/16
to
mr
May 29, 2016, 3:43:28 PM5/29/16
to
Peter T. Daniels
May 29, 2016, 4:00:13 PM5/29/16
to
transliterated <x>?
Which languages are you talking about?
Dingbat
May 30, 2016, 12:50:47 AM5/30/16
to
On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 6:59:23 PM UTC+5:30, mr wrote:
> ilah is cognate of elokh/eloah, right?
>
<messiach> in Hebrew is <messiha> in Aramaic. By analogy, it might seem that <eloach> in Hebrew would be <eloha> in Aramaic. These seem in some way derived from El.
> ilah is cognate of elokh/eloah, right?
>
>
> so which sound is closer to the original pronunciation?
>
Try these:
> so which sound is closer to the original pronunciation?
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_(deity)
https://www.google.com/search?q=ilu+god
>
>
> how to make the feminine form of elokh?
https://www.google.com/search?q=translate+goddess+to+hebrew
>
> how to make the feminine form of elokh?
Yusuf B Gursey
May 30, 2016, 4:56:50 AM5/30/16
to
back velar to uvular /x/ (*kh*, German ch), pharyngeal /H/
glottal /h/ (h, as in English horse)
All three are preserved in Arabic and in the Hebrew of 3rd cent. BCE.,
when the OT was translated into Greek (we can see that from Greek
transcriptions of names in the Septaugint.
In Phoenician (the Canaanite language spoken by the inventors of
the alphabet) /x/ and /H/ were merged into /H/ and represented
by Heth <H>.
This sound change had spread to Aramaic at some stage.
When Jews gradually abandoned Hebrew in favor Aramaic [x]
ceased to be in the inventory of sounds in their speech
and the merger of /x/ and /H/ to /H/ spread to their recitation
of Hebrew. This took place towards the Common Era and was
complete when the Masorites introduced diacritics into
the Bible. All Arabic renderings of Biblical names with Heth,
as well as all Aramaic loanwords (unless prehistoric)
are with Arabic /H/.
When Arabic came to be generally written in a modified
version of the Aramaic alphabet (the current Arabic script)
a dot was placed on Heth (Arabic Ha') to indicate /x/ (Arabic Kha')
When Ashkenazi Jews recite Hebrew, they use uvular [X] for Heth, since
their native speech is Yiddish or Slavic and this became dominant
in spoken Israeli Hebrew.
/h/ remained preserved and unchanged in the standard forms
of Hebrew, Aramaic and Aramaic.
'elo:h is with /h/ and so is Arabic 'ila:h . There is no elokh.
Yusuf B Gursey
May 30, 2016, 5:46:56 AM5/30/16
to
On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 7:50:47 AM UTC+3, Dingbat wrote:
> On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 6:59:23 PM UTC+5:30, mr wrote:
> > ilah is cognate of elokh/eloah, right?
> >
> <messiach> in Hebrew is <messiha> in Aramaic. By analogy, it might seem that <eloach> in Hebrew would be <eloha> in Aramaic. These seem in some way derived from El.
> >
<messiach> is a transcription partially based on
> On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 6:59:23 PM UTC+5:30, mr wrote:
> > ilah is cognate of elokh/eloah, right?
> >
> <messiach> in Hebrew is <messiha> in Aramaic. By analogy, it might seem that <eloach> in Hebrew would be <eloha> in Aramaic. These seem in some way derived from El.
> >
Ashkenazi Hebrew. me*sh*i:H-a: is Aramaic. μεσσίας
in Greek. The root is <m*sh*H>, the verb in Arabic
is masaHa "to wipe, to rub" (masaxa is "to transform")
etymological /H/
There is no "eloach". Aramaic has 'ela:h-a: and 'ala:h-a:
Many Semitic languages have both derivates of *'il- / *'i:l-
and *'ila:h-
Derivates of the 1st. are in: East Semitic, Ugaritic,
Canaanite / Hebrew, Old Aramaic, Sabaic
It is rarely found in some variaties of Ancient North Arabian.
It is extremely rare in Arabic. 'ill-un , 'il-un are mentioned
in the medieval dictionaries but they regard it as rare, dialect
or foreign. 'i:l-u and 'i:l-un seem to be recognized only from
foreign theophoric names.
It may be preserved in al-la:t (the pre-Islamic goddess)
from *al-'ila:t < *al-'ila:hat but perhaps < *al-'il-at
Derivatives of 'ila:h- are found in Ugaritic, Canaanite /Hebrew,
Aramaic, Late Sabaic (possibly a loanword from Arabic), Arabic.
The relationship between the words goes to the very early stages
of Proto-Semitic or the formative period of Proto-Semitic from
some stage of Proto-Afro-Asiatic when triliteral roots developed
from biliteral roots. This stage, called Pre-Proto-Semitic by Ehret
is not fully understood. Based on some other examples given by Ehret,
my guess is that -a:h is "augmentive" (emphatic).
> > so which sound is closer to the original pronunciation?
> >
> Try these:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_(deity)
> https://www.google.com/search?q=ilu+god
> >
> >
> > how to make the feminine form of elokh?
>
> https://www.google.com/search?q=translate+goddess+to+hebrew
Peter T. Daniels
May 30, 2016, 8:17:23 AM5/30/16
to
On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 12:50:47 AM UTC-4, Dingbat wrote:
> On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 6:59:23 PM UTC+5:30, mr wrote:
> > ilah is cognate of elokh/eloah, right?
>
> <messiach> in Hebrew is <messiha> in Aramaic. By analogy, it might seem that <eloach> in Hebrew would be <eloha> in Aramaic. These seem in some way derived from El.
There is no "ch" in the 'god' word. It is ה h not ח ḥ.
> On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 6:59:23 PM UTC+5:30, mr wrote:
> > ilah is cognate of elokh/eloah, right?
>
> <messiach> in Hebrew is <messiha> in Aramaic. By analogy, it might seem that <eloach> in Hebrew would be <eloha> in Aramaic. These seem in some way derived from El.
Ruud Harmsen
May 31, 2016, 3:10:19 AM5/31/16
to
Sun, 29 May 2016 21:50:46 -0700 (PDT): Dingbat
<ranjit_...@yahoo.com> scribeva:
>On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 6:59:23 PM UTC+5:30, mr wrote:
>> ilah is cognate of elokh/eloah, right?
>>
><messiach> in Hebrew is <messiha> in Aramaic. By analogy, it might seem
>that <eloach> in Hebrew would be <eloha> in Aramaic. These seem in some
>way derived from El.
Compare the Hebrew spelling of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah
with that of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim
(if your word eloach, unknown to me, is connected with that)
Different kind of h. The second doesn't have the "rough" sound and
doesn't merge with khav in Israeli Hebrew.
<ranjit_...@yahoo.com> scribeva:
>On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 6:59:23 PM UTC+5:30, mr wrote:
>> ilah is cognate of elokh/eloah, right?
>>
><messiach> in Hebrew is <messiha> in Aramaic. By analogy, it might seem
>that <eloach> in Hebrew would be <eloha> in Aramaic. These seem in some
>way derived from El.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah
with that of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim
(if your word eloach, unknown to me, is connected with that)
Different kind of h. The second doesn't have the "rough" sound and
doesn't merge with khav in Israeli Hebrew.
Ruud Harmsen
May 31, 2016, 3:20:04 AM5/31/16
to
Mon, 30 May 2016 01:56:48 -0700 (PDT): Yusuf B Gursey
<ygu...@gmail.com> scribeva:
>All three are preserved in Arabic and in the Hebrew of 3rd cent. BCE.,
>when the OT was translated into Greek (we can see that from Greek
>transcriptions of names in the Septaugint.
This is the only thing new to me, although I vaguely remember PTD
mentioned it too, recently.
>In Phoenician (the Canaanite language spoken by the inventors of
>the alphabet) /x/ and /H/ were merged into /H/ and represented
>by Heth <H>.
>
>This sound change had spread to Aramaic at some stage.
>
>When Jews gradually abandoned Hebrew in favor Aramaic [x]
>ceased to be in the inventory of sounds in their speech
>and the merger of /x/ and /H/ to /H/ spread to their recitation
>of Hebrew. This took place towards the Common Era and was
>complete when the Masorites introduced diacritics into
>the Bible. All Arabic renderings of Biblical names with Heth,
>as well as all Aramaic loanwords (unless prehistoric)
>are with Arabic /H/.
>
>When Arabic came to be generally written in a modified
>version of the Aramaic alphabet (the current Arabic script)
>a dot was placed on Heth (Arabic Ha') to indicate /x/ (Arabic Kha')
>
>When Ashkenazi Jews recite Hebrew, they use uvular [X] for Heth, since
>their native speech is Yiddish or Slavic and this became dominant
>in spoken Israeli Hebrew.
>
>/h/ remained preserved and unchanged in the standard forms
>of Hebrew, Aramaic and Aramaic.
>
> 'elo:h is with /h/ and so is Arabic 'ila:h . There is no elokh.
As I said, this lists all the know facts.
<ygu...@gmail.com> scribeva:
>Proto-Semitic had three "h" like sounds, all unvoiced fricatives.
>
>back velar to uvular /x/ (*kh*, German ch), pharyngeal /H/
>glottal /h/ (h, as in English horse)
Very good and clear explanation.
>
>back velar to uvular /x/ (*kh*, German ch), pharyngeal /H/
>glottal /h/ (h, as in English horse)
>All three are preserved in Arabic and in the Hebrew of 3rd cent. BCE.,
>when the OT was translated into Greek (we can see that from Greek
>transcriptions of names in the Septaugint.
mentioned it too, recently.
>In Phoenician (the Canaanite language spoken by the inventors of
>the alphabet) /x/ and /H/ were merged into /H/ and represented
>by Heth <H>.
>
>This sound change had spread to Aramaic at some stage.
>
>When Jews gradually abandoned Hebrew in favor Aramaic [x]
>ceased to be in the inventory of sounds in their speech
>and the merger of /x/ and /H/ to /H/ spread to their recitation
>of Hebrew. This took place towards the Common Era and was
>complete when the Masorites introduced diacritics into
>the Bible. All Arabic renderings of Biblical names with Heth,
>as well as all Aramaic loanwords (unless prehistoric)
>are with Arabic /H/.
>
>When Arabic came to be generally written in a modified
>version of the Aramaic alphabet (the current Arabic script)
>a dot was placed on Heth (Arabic Ha') to indicate /x/ (Arabic Kha')
>
>When Ashkenazi Jews recite Hebrew, they use uvular [X] for Heth, since
>their native speech is Yiddish or Slavic and this became dominant
>in spoken Israeli Hebrew.
>
>/h/ remained preserved and unchanged in the standard forms
>of Hebrew, Aramaic and Aramaic.
>
> 'elo:h is with /h/ and so is Arabic 'ila:h . There is no elokh.
Yusuf B Gursey
May 31, 2016, 3:38:53 AM5/31/16
to
On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 10:20:04 AM UTC+3, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Mon, 30 May 2016 01:56:48 -0700 (PDT): Yusuf B Gursey
> <ygu...@gmail.com> scribeva:
> >Proto-Semitic had three "h" like sounds, all unvoiced fricatives.
> >
> >back velar to uvular /x/ (*kh*, German ch), pharyngeal /H/
> >glottal /h/ (h, as in English horse)
>
> Very good and clear explanation.
>
> >All three are preserved in Arabic and in the Hebrew of 3rd cent. BCE.,
> >when the OT was translated into Greek (we can see that from Greek
> >transcriptions of names in the Septaugint.
>
> This is the only thing new to me, although I vaguely remember PTD
> mentioned it too, recently.
>
There is a detailed study "Heth in Biblical Hebrew" comparing
> Mon, 30 May 2016 01:56:48 -0700 (PDT): Yusuf B Gursey
> <ygu...@gmail.com> scribeva:
> >Proto-Semitic had three "h" like sounds, all unvoiced fricatives.
> >
> >back velar to uvular /x/ (*kh*, German ch), pharyngeal /H/
> >glottal /h/ (h, as in English horse)
>
> Very good and clear explanation.
>
> >All three are preserved in Arabic and in the Hebrew of 3rd cent. BCE.,
> >when the OT was translated into Greek (we can see that from Greek
> >transcriptions of names in the Septaugint.
>
> This is the only thing new to me, although I vaguely remember PTD
> mentioned it too, recently.
>
all the Greek transcriptions of proper names in the LXX with
their etymology. It's remarkabely consistent. Etymological
/H/ is left untranscribed while while etymological /x/ is
rendered by Chi or sometimes Kappa. A later study compares
Greek translations by "Church Fathers" and how this pehenomenon
disappears.
Yusuf B Gursey
May 31, 2016, 3:49:28 AM5/31/16
to
On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 10:10:19 AM UTC+3, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Sun, 29 May 2016 21:50:46 -0700 (PDT): Dingbat
> <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> scribeva:
>
> >On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 6:59:23 PM UTC+5:30, mr wrote:
> >> ilah is cognate of elokh/eloah, right?
> >>
> ><messiach> in Hebrew is <messiha> in Aramaic. By analogy, it might seem
> >that <eloach> in Hebrew would be <eloha> in Aramaic. These seem in some
> >way derived from El.
>
> Compare the Hebrew spelling of
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah
> with that of
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim
> (if your word eloach, unknown to me, is connected with that)
>
> Different kind of h. The second doesn't have the "rough" sound and
> doesn't merge with khav in Israeli Hebrew.
>
All 1st millenium loanwords and proper names from
> Sun, 29 May 2016 21:50:46 -0700 (PDT): Dingbat
> <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> scribeva:
>
> >On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 6:59:23 PM UTC+5:30, mr wrote:
> >> ilah is cognate of elokh/eloah, right?
> >>
> ><messiach> in Hebrew is <messiha> in Aramaic. By analogy, it might seem
> >that <eloach> in Hebrew would be <eloha> in Aramaic. These seem in some
> >way derived from El.
>
> Compare the Hebrew spelling of
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah
> with that of
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim
> (if your word eloach, unknown to me, is connected with that)
>
> Different kind of h. The second doesn't have the "rough" sound and
> doesn't merge with khav in Israeli Hebrew.
>
Hebrew and Aramaic in Arabic use /H/ for Heth regardless
of etymology. Arabic speaking Jews recite Hebrew using
the pharyngeal pronounciation [H] for Heth. Arabic /H/
is represented by the letter derived from Nabataean Heth
unmodified, while Arabic /x/ is represented by the same
letter with a dot over it.
All these confirm the pronunciation [H] for Heth in
Masoretic Hebrew and Aramaic of the 1st millenium CE.
Helmut Richter
May 31, 2016, 4:33:29 AM5/31/16
to
Am 31.05.2016 um 09:38 schrieb Yusuf B Gursey:
> There is a detailed study "Heth in Biblical Hebrew" comparing
> all the Greek transcriptions of proper names in the LXX with
> their etymology. It's remarkabely consistent. Etymological
> /H/ is left untranscribed while while etymological /x/ is
> rendered by Chi or sometimes Kappa. A later study compares
> Greek translations by "Church Fathers" and how this pehenomenon
> disappears.
The LXX distinguishes also between ع (as in Amos) and غ (as in Gomorra)
> There is a detailed study "Heth in Biblical Hebrew" comparing
> all the Greek transcriptions of proper names in the LXX with
> their etymology. It's remarkabely consistent. Etymological
> /H/ is left untranscribed while while etymological /x/ is
> rendered by Chi or sometimes Kappa. A later study compares
> Greek translations by "Church Fathers" and how this pehenomenon
> disappears.
although in Hebrew, the same letter ע is used for both.
The transcription rules for all letters are handled in an older paper:
Clemens Könnecke: Die Behandlung der hebräischen Namen in der
Septuaginta. in: Programm des Königlichen und Gröning’schen Gymnasiums
zu Stargard in Pommern, Stargard 1885.
https://archive.org/details/DieBehandlungDerHebrischenNamenInDerSeptuaginta
--
Helmut Richter
Dingbat
Jun 2, 2016, 8:56:43 PM6/2/16
to
Yusuf B Gursey
Jun 3, 2016, 6:03:27 AM6/3/16
to
Peter T. Daniels
Jun 3, 2016, 8:25:08 AM6/3/16
to
On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 6:03:27 AM UTC-4, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 3:56:43 AM UTC+3, Dingbat wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 1:19:28 PM UTC+5:30, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> > > All 1st millenium loanwords and proper names from
> > > Hebrew and Aramaic in Arabic use /H/ for Heth regardless
> > > of etymology. Arabic speaking Jews recite Hebrew using
> > > the pharyngeal pronounciation [H] for Heth. Arabic /H/
> > > is represented by the letter derived from Nabataean Heth
> > > unmodified, while Arabic /x/ is represented by the same
> > > letter with a dot over it.
> > > All these confirm the pronunciation [H] for Heth in
> > > Masoretic Hebrew and Aramaic of the 1st millenium CE.
> > How did Septuagint Greek speaking Greeks, who spoke little Hebrew, pronounce these 3 hs?
>
> It was translated into Greek by Jews.
Greek-speaking Jews in Alexandria, that is -- the world center of learning --
> On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 3:56:43 AM UTC+3, Dingbat wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 1:19:28 PM UTC+5:30, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> > > All 1st millenium loanwords and proper names from
> > > Hebrew and Aramaic in Arabic use /H/ for Heth regardless
> > > of etymology. Arabic speaking Jews recite Hebrew using
> > > the pharyngeal pronounciation [H] for Heth. Arabic /H/
> > > is represented by the letter derived from Nabataean Heth
> > > unmodified, while Arabic /x/ is represented by the same
> > > letter with a dot over it.
> > > All these confirm the pronunciation [H] for Heth in
> > > Masoretic Hebrew and Aramaic of the 1st millenium CE.
> > How did Septuagint Greek speaking Greeks, who spoke little Hebrew, pronounce these 3 hs?
>
> It was translated into Greek by Jews.
and it was needed because many couldn't read Hebrew.
Presumably the letters were pronounced as in Greek.
0 new messages