The #Deltacron tweet made a big impression on me yesterday and I've been thinking about letter names ever since. One thing to note is that we like to pretend we know what the #Phoenician letter names were, but we don't really. Most of the names you see are actually #Hebrew. 1/10
That goes for names like "aleph". Sometimes you'll see reconstructed forms, like "ʾalp", which are closer to the #Greek names and partially also attested in the Septuagint of Psalm 119 (118 in Gk)—but there they're actually Hebrew too, of course. 2/10 en.katabiblon.com/us/index.php?t…
One place where the Greek and Semitic letter names show weird correspondences is with the sibilants. @pd_myers has recently published on this (paywall): academic.oup.com/jss/article/64… 3/10
Myers follows Jeffery's (not the Arabist) explanation that because the Greeks only had one sibilant, they got confused and mixed the letters up; see table. The article uses square script instead of Phoenician but ז = 𐤆; ס = 𐤎; צ = 𐤑; ש = 𐤔. 4/10
But IMHO this doesn't adequately explain how /š/ became /ks/ and how /ts’/ became /sd/. Tropper notes that the reconstructed Proto-Semitic values for these sounds work out better:
𐤔 /s/ ➡ Σ /s/
𐤎 /ts/ ➡ Ξ /ks/
𐤆 /dz/ ➡ Ζ /sd/
𐤑 /ts’/ ➡ Ϻ /?/
5/10 jstor.org/stable/43380211
But then why do the letters have the wrong name? If sígma was borrowed from šīn, why isn't it called sĩn or sĩ (like nũ from nūn), or even sínna? The name does look a lot more like sāmeḵ or #Syriac semkaṯ (*simk-a > *sikma > sígma). 6/10
One point I haven't seen made is that Ξ xi (oldest form of the Greek name: kseĩ) follows the pattern of the extra consonants that Greek didn't take from Phoenician: Φ phi (pheĩ), Χ chi (kheĩ), and Ψ psi (pseĩ). 7/10
So maybe we're dealing with a two-stage development here. 1. Greek borrows the alphabet. 𐤎 is still /ts/ so it is adapted to the next best thing in Greek, becoming Ξ /ks/.
THEN LATER:
8/10
2. Greek borrows or re-borrows the letter names. At this point, /s/ in Semitic is written with 𐤎, a letter called something like *simk. So the Greek letter /s/, Σ, gets called sígma. At this point, Ξ /ks/ doesn't have a Semitic counterpart, so it becomes kseĩ by default. 9/10
These default letter names look a lot like what #Latin does with plosives (bē, cē, dē, pē, tē). Maybe this is what Greek did before borrowing the letter names too? No idea how we could tell.
That's it. More thoughts on letter names may follow later; you've been warned. 10/10
Crazy #Syriac word of the day, from our class reading yesterday: ܚܙܐܘܝܗܝ ḥzauy 'they saw him' (transcriptions again reflect West Syriac pronunciation). More letters in Syriac than in transcription! I wrote about the redundant suffix two weeks ago: 1/10
The III-weak plural ending ܘ- -aw as in ܚܙܘ ḥzaw 'they saw' turns into -au- before suffixes, written -ܐܘ- -ʔw- with an extra alaph to spell the hiatus (two vowels in a row). At least, this is the traditional explanation; forms like *ḥzaw-y turning to ḥzauy. 2/10
In 2010, Aaron Butts questioned this development in an article on the adverbial ending ܐܝܬ- -oiṯ, which shows the same change if it goes back to *-āyt (as seems most likely): 3/10 academia.edu/1432991/The_Et…
After a summary of his original argument, @IdanDershowitz moves on to discussing some major points of criticism.
Against my argument that V contradicts the literary reconstructions Idan cites, he states that it agrees with them for 97%. Not sure whether this is a rhetorical figure or what it is based on otherwise. IMO, the disagreements are important, things like:
A few words on how the #Qumran sect referred to the #Pharisees, whom they did *not* like.
Their writings often refer to the דורשי חלקות *dōrešē ḥalāqōt 'seekers/interpreters of smooth things'. This appears to be the Dead Sea Scrolls' most common term for the Pharisees. 1/5
It is probably a pun on דורשי הלכות *dōrešē halākōt 'interpreters of halakhot (= Pharisaic/Rabbinic rules)'. With the weakened pronunciation of the gutturals /ḥ/ and /h/ known from these texts, it was probably even more hilarious. It implies the Pharisees wanted easy rules. 2/5
Pesher Nahum (3–4 ii 1–2) uses this term besides two others: "'Woe to the city of blood; it is full of lies and rapine': its interpretation is the city of Ephraim, those who seek smooth things during the last days, who walk in lies and falsehood". ('Walking' again is √hlk.) 3/5
Based on #Hebrew and #Arabic, we reconstruct a slightly irregular paradigm for the prefix conjugation for Pr-Cntrl-#Semitic, where the 3rd radical is lost word-finally:
imperfect *ta-bniy-u 'you build'; but
imperative *bni 'build!' 1/7
In Arabic, the *-iyu of the imperfect contracts to -ī, while the imperative adds i- before the cluster:
imperfect *ta-bniy-u > tabnī
imperative *bni > ibni
The #Hebrew and #Aramaic vocalization sign shwa is sometimes read as a reduced vowel (hence the phonetic term schwa). Other times, it indicates the absence of any vowel. The rules are pretty clear, but there's some disagreement over words ending in 2 consonants with shwa. 1/6
For example, should Biblical Aramaic אַנְתְּה 'you (m.sg.)' be read as Ɂant or Ɂantə? (Yes, there's an extra ה at the end and yes, the Masoretes read shwa as a full vowel, not [ə]; that's all not relevant right now, you know what I mean.) 2/6
We can actually tell that no vowel was read in these cases from the lack of spirantization of following consonants. In #Daniel 4:15, for example, the vocalization has וְאַ֨נְתְּה בֵּלְטְשַׁאצַּ֜ר wə-Ɂant bēlṭəšaṣṣar and וְאַ֣נְתְּה כָּהֵ֔ל wə-Ɂant kāhēl. 3/6
Time for some #Semitic geekery concerning 'hollow verbs'. These are verbs which have a vowel (usually long) where strong verbs have their second radical consonant, like #Arabic qām-a 'he stood up', ya-qūm-u 'he will stand up', #Hebrew qām, yā-qūm (same meanings). 1/9
It's controversial whether these hollow verbs already had this shape in Proto-Semitic. The alternative is that they originally had the consonant *w or *y as their second radical, but that this dropped out in various languages, causing vowel contraction. 2/9
I think the forms like ya-qūm- are Proto-Semitic, where they developed from even earlier forms like ya-qwum-. But because other forms (like Arabic and Hebrew qām-) show irregular correspondences between different languages, Proto-Semitic retained a consonant here IMO. 3/9