Re: Just a Little Taste of Judean (Part 2)

On Sun, 11 Apr 1999, Tom Wier wrote:

> Padraic Brown wrote:
> > Why not for the same reason we (English speakers) do?  We don't say
> > "sanctu sanctoru", we say "sanctum sanctorum"; "quorum" not "quoro".
> > Perhaps the Protojudeans could pick it up from written Latin?
>
> > So that makes for two possibilities: they pick it up from written
> > (Classical) Latin and end up pronouncing it (perhaps only in elevated
> > registers?); they pick it up from written Latin, spelling it but leaving
> > it silent always.
>
> Neither of which I really could imagine, IMHO.  The first requires a
> kind of social organization that simply did not exist, and the second,
> while being much more probable, IMO does not explain why future
> generations would, with the spread of education, not attempt to spell
> phonemicly (as the idea of a "proper" spelling system is an invention of
> the last 300 years or so -- it certainly didn't exist then to any
> measurable degree).
>
I guess what I'm saying is that it might have become a kind of
affectation.  It's been mentioned that there was a literacy rate of about
5% at the time (probably a lot higher as time progresses).  If the
literate of the Proto-Judean period affect the -m based on written Latin;
this will not necessarily have an effect on the illiterate.  Especially if
the affectation is purely orthographic.  Over time, and with improving
education, this affectation can spread and eventually become standard, if
it were pronounced.  (cf. the axian/ascian business in English, whereby
the once popular axian has been relegated to low class dialect, if I
understood the discussion aright).

As for a standardised spelling: I am not a Jew, but I gather that Jews set
great store in the proper recording of the Law, and such.  Might that not
be an impetus for some kind of standaridisation in spelling?  All this
assuming that, like the Alexandrian and other Jews, they were not using
Hebrew.  Or is that all out of kilter?

As for my comparison with American (or any modern) users of Latin:  There
are very few people anymore who have been exposed to spoken Latin (those
that have are, generally, Roman Catholics over the age of 55 or so), so
all of the "Latin experience" for the rest of us comes out of books.
Hence, we pronounce final M's.  Now, I understand that Judean is
ultimately derived from Proto-Romance, like French or Spanish; and thus
will not have inherited an M or even perhaps a nasalisation from that
source.  Now, what happens when the literate Judeans early on get their
hands on Latin texts?  Perhaps they'll see the M's and adopt the practice.

Padraic.

>
>
> =======================================================
> Tom Wier <artabanos@...>
> ICQ#: 4315704   AIM: Deuterotom
> Website: <http://www.angelfire.com/tx/eclectorium/>
> "Cogito ergo sum, sed credo ergo ero."
>
> There's nothing particularly wrong with the
> proletariat. It's the hamburgers of the
> proletariat that I have a problem with. - Alfred Wallace
> ========================================================
>