Reflections on the Development of Hebrew Letters

Ross G Caldwell

Hi Huck -

"Well, you've a face and a head ....
..... but where is your body?

What feels good like a fish in the water?

.... what's the story of Osiris and what's the 14th part of his body, for which Isis had to take special care for?

.... and why look m and n so similar"

So you're saying, that M and N don't belong together in the nice picture I drew?
 

Ross G Caldwell

firemaiden said:
This is fun, Ross, thank you for posting the communications from your expert colleagues. :) Can they tell us what is the linguistic relationship between the semitic phoenician language, and Aramaic?
Click to expand...

This is a more complex question, it may be more work than they'd like to do, and I'll bet they would rather we did some basic research first - I'd prefer to answer with what I know and then search the internet - if there are any specific questions in what is generally available, I'll ask.

Alternatively, you could join the ANE list yourself. To subscribe to ANE, use the form at:
https://listhost.uchicago.edu/mailman/listinfo/ane

The description of the list is at
http://www-oi.uchicago.edu/OI/ANE/OI_ANE.html

Many of the top scholars in the field post there. I've started an argument there with my question about the Phoenician letters, with a fellow from Leiden University suggesting that the Greek letter- names are in fact borrowed from Aramaic, rather than Phoenician.

The argument has to do with a gemination or doubling of a consonant - i.e. the Greek letter kappa seems better explained as a borrowing from the root kpp (Aramaic) than a presumed kaf (Phoenician). More importantly, Martin (at Leiden) argues that the final "a" (alfa, beta, gamma etc.) of the Greek names reflects the Aramaic postpositive article (the letter 'alef). His arguments sound good.

The main drawback appears to be that the palaeographic evidence suggests the Greek alphabet was borrowed at too early a time for the Aramaic names to have arisen - before the 8th century b.c.e.

I'm just following - I have nothing to offer to the debate. But it is better to listen in on the discussions of experts, than having to subscribe to or track down all kinds of obscure journals and books.

My own understanding is that Phoenician (or Canaanite) is the "parent" of Hebrew and Aramaic, but much more closely related than, say, Latin is with Italian, French or Spanish. There aren't many texts in Phoenician; until the 1920s, when Ugaritic was discovered, Aramaic and Hebrew stood mostly alone in the Northwest Semitic language group.

This paper gives a schematic outline of the semitic language family, with a few notes -
http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~rogers/handouts/6 Semitic.pdf

This page is good for some descriptions and links -

http://www.bible.gen.nz/amos/language/languages.htm

There are many others - I'll try to find something really good.

Ross
 

Huck

Drawing is the a good idea

Ross G Caldwell said:
Hi Huck -

"Well, you've a face and a head ....
..... but where is your body?

What feels good like a fish in the water?

.... what's the story of Osiris and what's the 14th part of his body, for which Isis had to take special care for?

.... and why look m and n so similar"

So you're saying, that M and N don't belong together in the nice picture I drew?
Click to expand...

Drawing is a good idea ... :), when thinking about the ABC-man.
But I've seen no picture?

Anyway, how do feel like a pornographic artist? ... :)
 

Ross G Caldwell

Re: Drawing is the a good idea

Huck said:
Drawing is a good idea ... :), when thinking about the ABC-man.
But I've seen no picture?

Anyway, how do feel like a pornographic artist? ... :)
Click to expand...

:)

http://www.angelfire.com/space/tarot/abcman.html

I only did it to humour you.

My chief objections are these -

A funny drawing done in modern times does not constitute historical proof for ancient times.

Only 6 of the letters mean what they are meant to; one is suspect (qof), and the other 5 are made up by the needs of your theory. There is no evidence they ever meant anything else.

Your theory demands that only 12 be used; but the Cosmic man of 12 parts is not attested before late antiquity.

The 12 sign zodiac is not attested before 6th-5th century b.c.e., way too late for your needs.

The alphabet on which you base this theory is too early for both the Sefer Yetzirah and the Zodiac.

The Sefer Yetzirah is irrelevant to the earliest history of the alphabet.

There is no evidence for the Master of the Alphabet; if there was such a person, or who he or she was.

There is no evidence the primary purpose was to teach children to read and write.

There is no evidence of this alphabet being used to teach children to read and write.

There is no evidence for this style of pedagogy in the second millenium b.c.e.

Any kind of evidence for any of the above would go a little way towards helping your theory.

But the primary objection, I reiterate, is that you have to manufacture data (the 6 letters that don't mean parts of the body). The second most important objection is that you arbitrarily limit it to 12, based on nothing more than a text as far removed from this alphabet as we are from the text.

It is not alphabetic or historical logic that demands these 12 letters conform to your theory, but only *your* logic and sense of humour (which is not bad, but is far from constituting historical proof).

But, for your amusement, here goes -

http://www.angelfire.com/space/tarot/abcman.html
 

firemaiden

Originally posted by Ross G Caldwell My own understanding is that Phoenician (or Canaanite) is the "parent" of Hebrew and Aramaic, but much more closely related than, say, Latin is with Italian, French or Spanish. There aren't many texts in Phoenician; until the 1920s, when Ugaritic was discovered, Aramaic and Hebrew stood mostly alone in the Northwest Semitic language group.
Click to expand...

I'm having fun, thank you Ross, those were wonderful links. From the paper you linked to, it sure seems that Phoencian and Aramaic are very close. If they were all so close, it makes perfect sense for the letter names to go way, way back.

By the way, have you seen the animations on the Evolution of Alphabets page? I've watched them a dozen times, (I click re-load to make it go again) The evolution of the Square Aramaic/Hebrew character set from the Phoenician character set
and the evolution of the Phoenician character set from the Proto-Sinaitic glyphs.
 

Huck

Re: Re: Drawing is the a good idea

Ross G Caldwell said:
:)

http://www.angelfire.com/space/tarot/abcman.html

I only did it to humour you.

My chief objections are these -

A funny drawing done in modern times does not constitute historical proof for ancient times.
Click to expand...

:) This arguments were too stupid. You only want to provoke me to make the riddle more easy.

The moon is running around earth billions of years already 12-13 times a year. Your zodiac argument is so shortsighted ... :)

And there are 7 of 12 reflecting directly parts of the body and this is far enough in the reconstruction of an idea ... especially cause there are possibly 4000 years between idea and reception and unclear transmission is part of the deciphering game.

And I didn't claim, that the SY perfectly speaks true and I didn't stress the zodiac-idea in it ... :) please read correctly

The makro-anthropos idea, either as time and year or as space and cosmos, is very old and appears variously. There is this Chinese and there is Adam and a Gayomart or similar in Zoroastrism, but actually I don't stress them here, cause, if your imagination is really so poor, that it seems strange and unproven to you, that it was always necessary to teach somebody between humans ....
and that there always tricks were used ...

:)

.... then you can go to stupid scientists with missing vision, if they've a better idea ...

:)
 

kwaw

Ross G Caldwell said:
Hi Kwaw



I got some more helpful responses from some scholars, with further articles to read etc.: -

"Dear Ross,
First of all, alef appears about half a dozen times meaning ox in Dt
7:13; 28:4; 18:51; Is 30:24; Ps 8:8; 50:10 and Prv 14:4, and is cognate with Akkadian alpu, so there's nothing special about the word.

Ross
Click to expand...

Thankyou Ross [and your scholar friends] for finding these references, I had only identified two. The ALPh root connection cattle [cattle, calving, ox, oxen] is certainly then attested.

The same phrase is used in both Dt 7:13, 28:4 -

ShGR [increase] ALPhYK [calving] VAyShTRVTH [and lambing] and in the KJV is translated-

7:13 "..increase of thy cattle and the young of thy sheep".
28:4 "...fruit of thy cattle.....and the flocks of thy sheep."

The Jewish Study Bible [tanakh translation] gives for 7:13-

"...the calving of your herd and the lambing of your flock." The margin notes mention that the words for 'calving' [ALPhYK] and 'lambing' [AyShTRVTH, ie Astoroth or Astarte] were originally the names of two Ugaritic fertility deities. The context of the passages in which this phrase appears seeks to show that 'Fecundity is contingent upon obedience to the covenant - and not upon .... competing fertility gods' [quote from the side notes of the Tanakh]. So there is also a connection with a divinity of cattle ['AL'? or re: the golden calf?].

Thanks again for finding these references for us.
Kwaw
 
Writing the Letters Aleph -- Ox