Re: Hebrew, etc. [was: Multi-lingos

Dan Sulani wrote:
"Among some people from certain parts of North Africa, the "tsade" which is
usually pronounced [ts], is pronounced like an emphasized unvoiced [s],
which, I gather, is closer to the proto-Semitic value of the letter (someone
please correct me if I am wrong), as opposed to the "samech" and "sin" which
are both, AFAIK, pronounced [s], unemphasized. I haven't run across any
speakers who differentiate between "samech" and "sin"."

   Actually, Robert Hetzron has made a convincing argument that the origin
PS value of samech was an affricate *ts, and that tsade was its glottalic
correspondent *ts'.  Over time, the first became de-affricated in all
Semitic languages (merging with PS *s) and the second remained an affricate
but ceased to be glottalic.  This evidence is born out by the Akkadian
evidence (even though the Akkadians failed to represent the entire
consonantal repertoire of the West Semitic languages) and the Greek
transcriptions of words containing samech.
   Note, for example, that the Greek letter sigma is based upon the
Phoenician /s/, cognate to Hebrew shin and Arabic sin (the original PS value
was /s/).  The Greek letter that corresponds best to samech in the
Phoenician and Paleo-Hebrew alphabet is ksi, an affricate.  I don't recall
the Greeks recycling tsade for any use in their alphabet.
   So, with regard to this consonant, it is Arabic which is the innovative
language!  (Semitists of the last century often considered Arabic as equal
to Proto-Semitic itself.)
   Sin is a bit of a catch-all consonant; Semitists like to say that it is
the reflex of a PS voiceless lateral consonant (found also in Welsh, for
example), which was on the way out during the Biblical period (but see, for
example, the many spellings of the word "Chaldean" in Hebrew, where sin
alternates with lamed (or else we'd have Chasdeans).  I would like to think
that this consonant was also used for loan words into Hebrew from other NW
Semitic languages such as Phoenician; these languages would have /s/ as the
cognate of Hebrew shin, and they would just spell these words etymologically
(with the same letter used in the Aramaic and Phoenician scripts, later
distinguished by a diacritic) rather than phonetically (using samech, unless
of course samech was still an affricate, in which case it would represent a
completely different sound...)
   Biblical Aramaic distinguishes between sin and samech even though other
Aramaic dialects do not (sin has merged with samech).  It's possible that
this is probably another example of etymological spelling.  Nevertheless,
the whole situation of Semitic sibillants is rather confusing, and obscure
in any sense of the word.
-Chollie
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.