Re: Semitic rhotic questions
| From: | Paul Bennett <paul-bennett@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Friday, November 7, 2003, 14:31 |
|---|
On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 18:36:10 +0200, Isaac Penzev <isaacp@...> wrote:
>> 1. Does anyone know with any acceptable degree of
>> certainty what the actual value of the Biblical Hebrew
>> rhotic was?
>
> It is rather possible that Old Hebrew /r/ was [G] or [R] because it is
> classified as guttural, and its presence in the stem provokes the same
> kind of
> phonetic changes, as, e.g. /X\/ or /?\/.
Well, damn. That flies in the face of my research, although I trust you
more than I trust myself on this matter. I might have some quite severe re-
borrowing to do. Blast. Still, it's only a small handfull of roots at this
time, so that's not too bad.
Anyone else got any information to back up either /4/ or /G/~/R/ for
ancient Hebrew? Steg? Dan? Anyone?
Thinking about Thagojian etymology, might it be as wise to borrow from
things like Punic as much as Hebrew? Adam, is the reference material you
used for Punic (and other languages of the area) to borrow Carrajena words
from online, or do I need to think about buying a book? I know I need to
find a Coptic dictionary from somewhere already, so I guess other languages
of that area might not be far behind.
(Nifty side-thought) If Carrajena exists geographically and temporally
where I postulate it to exist, Thagojian might even have to borrow a couple
of C-a roots, too.
Paul
Replies