Re: Consonant diacritics (was: Optimum number of symbols)

Dan Sulani scripsit:

> And yet one is written exactly like "shin" with only a variation
> in diacritics ("sin"), while the other has a totally different
> orthographic form ("samech").
> Sadly, my knowledge of Semitic historical linguistics
> isn't deep enough for me to venture further comment on the subject,
> so I decided to play it safe and emphasize that I was describing
> the situation as I hear/see it today.
The assumption is that "sin" must once have represented something like
/K/ (lateral fricative), as shown by the lateral sound in English "balsam"
(< Latin < Greek), where the triliteral is bet-sin-mem.

--
John Cowan <jcowan@...>     http://www.reutershealth.com
I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen,    http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith.  --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_

Reply