Tory Thorpe schrieb:
> Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir@...
> <mailto:yitzhaksapir%40gmail.com>> wrote:
> > I find here that the name is transcribed as
> > Reamashesha on EEF based on the
> > treaty of Qadesh:
> > However, the sh is only apparently the Hittite
> > transcription, whereas Hebrew has
> > samekh (ts?) and Egyptian appears to be using s' for
> > the first
> > instance. I suppose
> > the Ayin is to go between the "i" and the "a".
> > Of the above transcriptions Ramses, Ra'amses,
> > Ramesses, "Ramses" is by far
> > the most common with about 4 million instances in a
> > google search.
> > Yitzhak Sapir
> Zipora Cochavi-Rainey, in JNES 49 (1990), shows that
> the scribes who wrote letters like KUB 3 were native
> speakers of Egyptian. If that's true, the sh in
> Reamashesha in KUB 3 obv. line 1, written in syllabic
> cuneiform, would not be the Hittite transcription but
> how native Egyptians (in the north?) pronounced the
> the name of the pharaoh. It would seem to validate
> what Redford means when he says the biblical name
> has nothing in common with Pi-Ramesses; whereas the
> popular rendition and pronunciation of this ruler's
> name is based, incorrectly, on the biblical name.
> Perhaps Eliot could lead the way in correcting this
> mistake in scholarly literature.
> Tory Thorpe
The point you have to keep in mind is the real sound value of the
cuneiform signs. There is a fairly general consesus of scholars (e.g.
Starke), that at least for the Hittite area, the signs nowadays
transcript with sh represent a simple s, whereas those now
transliterated with s or z represent an affricated sound like ts (which
in Egyptian is rendered by T - t with a stroke underline).
However, the sheer fact that the biblical rendering has samekh is a good
sign that it is a "late" loan (1st millenium), not something transmitted
as a tradition from the second millenium (contrary to the name of Moses).
Prof. Dr. Joachim Friedrich Quack
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]