Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: The month of ZYB (KAI 288)

Expand Messages
  • Tory Thorpe
    ... As I said, you should read more carefully. ... Yes, I said I question it. I did not say scholars X, Y, and Z also question it or that a consensus of
    Message 1 of 23 , Nov 23, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups.com, "Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir@...> wrote:
      >
      > On Nov 23, 2007 9:20 AM, Tory Thorpe wrote:
      >
      > This is what I said you said.
      >
      > > The reading I question
      >
      > You did not say that you simply question this reading. You said,
      > as if a matter of fact or consensus, that Lidzbarski's reading is "an
      > old misreading" (although you added "if not mistaken").

      As I said, you should read more carefully.

      > I asked - Why do you say that (apparently the Constantine
      > attestation) is a misreading? What is the correct reading if not ZYB?
      >
      > You defined that the reading ZYB is correct but it is the equation with
      > ZW that is in question. So far so good.

      Yes, I said I question it. I did not say scholars
      X, Y, and Z also question it or that a consensus
      of scholars reject the reading. Kindly refrain from
      putting words in mouths of others.

      > It is clear now that Lidzbarski's reading is not old in the sense that it
      > has been somehow superseded, nor is it a misreading or misidentification
      > that is not accepted by scholars.

      His analysis is "old" since it was published
      in 1907. That is what I meant. And I described
      it as a misreading because that is what I think it is
      but I cannot be certain. This is why I prefaced my
      remarks with "if not mistaken".

      > You seem to think Cohen does not accept the identification (am I wrong
      > here?) but all you have to offer to support that in the latest response is:
      >
      > > > It is reasonable that he [Cohen] might miss one or two. It
      > > > seems like this is what happened here.
      > >
      > > Perhaps in the future you should make every effort to check with an author
      > > first before using the world wide web to say what you think he or she does
      > > not know.
      >
      > I don't know. If you checked with Cohen and he told you he doesn't accept
      > zyb = ziw, could you please just say so? Or perhaps there is some article of
      > Cohen that deals with this issue? If so could you offer the reference? Or are
      > you simply in the business of making accusations against what you imagine
      > my methods to be?

      I can check with him, but from his book it seems
      clear he is skeptical. A Semitic month name written
      as ZW remains unattested outside the biblical text.
      You have to special plead an association with ZYB.
      So it is completely understandable why he decided
      not to discuss ZYB. You said he just didn't know
      about ZYB, a name scholars have known about now
      for over a century. I said this was unlikely and suggested
      to you that you should probably ask him first before
      using the world wide web to say what you think he
      doesn't know.

      Tory Thorpe
    • Dean Snyder
      ... Actually, these words have more in common than just Z. Here is a list of what they have in common. 1) At a minimum, they are both names associated with the
      Message 2 of 23 , Nov 24, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        torythrp wrote at 10:15 PM on Sunday, November 18, 2007:

        >The only thing ZW and ZYB have in common is Z.

        Actually, these words have more in common than just Z.

        Here is a list of what they have in common.

        1) At a minimum, they are both names associated with the calendar.
        2) As usually taken, they are both month names.
        3) The words occur in cultures that intersect chronologically,
        geographically, and, most importantly, linguistically.
        4) They both have the same first consonant.
        5) There is the distinct possibility that they have the same number of
        consonants - Y being a mater lectionis.
        6) If they do, then not only are their first consonants the same, but
        their final consonants are homorganic, both being bilabials. (There are
        numerous equivalences across bilabials in Semitic cognates. Even within
        Phoenician compare the dual orthographies for the Berber proper name,
        ZBQ and ZYWG, which neatly illustrate in a single set both W/B
        interchange and Y as a mater lectionis.)
        7) If Y is a mater lectionis here, then the Hebrew, Phoenician, and most
        of the Greek reflexes share the same vocalization.

        Assuming all of this, then we have the Z's in common, the I's in common,
        and the W/OU/B's in common (as homorganic consonants). Moreover we find
        just these elements occurring in the exact same sequence, with nothing
        else added.

        Any analysis of these words will, at a minimum, have to account for this
        shared assemblage of factors.

        Let me be clear - I am not taking a position here on these words being
        cognates; I'm just saying that one must take into account a broader
        linguistic context than just shared Z's.


        Dean A. Snyder

        Associate Research Scholar
        Manager, Digital Hammurabi Project
        Technology Consultant, Neo-Babylonian Trial Procedure Project
        Computer Science Department, Whiting School of Engineering
        420 Wyman Park Building, 3400 North Charles Street
        Johns Hopkins University
        Baltimore, Maryland, USA 21218

        cell: 717 817-4897
        www.jhu.edu/digitalhammurabi/2/
        www.neh.gov/news/awards/researchawards_052006.html
      • Tory Thorpe
        ... I had in mind orthography when I stated the above, so I do agree with these points. We could add another similarity to this list since the biblical month
        Message 3 of 23 , Nov 26, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups.com, "Dean Snyder" <dean.snyder@...> wrote:
          >
          > torythrp wrote at 10:15 PM on Sunday, November 18, 2007:
          >
          > >The only thing ZW and ZYB have in common is Z.
          >
          > Actually, these words have more in common than just Z.
          >
          > Here is a list of what they have in common.
          >
          > 1) At a minimum, they are both names associated with the calendar.
          > 2) As usually taken, they are both month names.
          > 3) The words occur in cultures that intersect chronologically,
          > geographically, and, most importantly, linguistically.
          > 4) They both have the same first consonant.

          I had in mind orthography when I stated the above,
          so I do agree with these points. We could add another
          similarity to this list since the biblical month name
          transcribes a foreign month name presumably from
          the same calendar as ZYB, assuming that ZYB is the
          name of a month.

          > 5) There is the distinct possibility that they have the same number of
          > consonants - Y being a mater lectionis.
          > 6) If they do, then not only are their first consonants the same, but
          > their final consonants are homorganic, both being bilabials. (There are
          > numerous equivalences across bilabials in Semitic cognates. Even within
          > Phoenician compare the dual orthographies for the Berber proper name,
          > ZBQ and ZYWG, which neatly illustrate in a single set both W/B
          > interchange and Y as a mater lectionis.)

          I did not consider as a possibility that ZW and ZYB might be
          dual orthographies within Phoenician.

          > 7) If Y is a mater lectionis here, then the Hebrew, Phoenician, and most
          > of the Greek reflexes share the same vocalization.

          Although it is possible Greek ZIOU shares the same
          vocalization as the Masoretic, I still think the Greek
          LXX and its variants point to a different vocalization,
          giving rise to the confusion between ZW and the
          Macedonian month name Dios, month II in one
          correlation.

          > Assuming all of this, then we have the Z's in common, the I's in common,
          > and the W/OU/B's in common (as homorganic consonants). Moreover we find
          > just these elements occurring in the exact same sequence, with nothing
          > else added.

          I admit the similarities are great, but it's precisely because we
          have to assume so much that the doubt as to a relationship is real.

          I did confer with Mark Cohen today and someone's guess
          was correct. Dr. Cohen was unaware of the reference
          to ZYB in Lidzbarski and he of course could not make any
          use of the 5th edition of the first volume of KAI.

          > Let me be clear - I am not taking a position here on these words being
          > cognates; I'm just saying that one must take into account a broader
          > linguistic context than just shared Z's.
          >
          > Dean A. Snyder
          >
          > Associate Research Scholar
          > Manager, Digital Hammurabi Project
          > Technology Consultant, Neo-Babylonian Trial Procedure Project
          > Computer Science Department, Whiting School of Engineering
          > 420 Wyman Park Building, 3400 North Charles Street
          > Johns Hopkins University
          > Baltimore, Maryland, USA 21218
          >
          > cell: 717 817-4897
          > www.jhu.edu/digitalhammurabi/2/
          > www.neh.gov/news/awards/researchawards_052006.html

          Tory Thorpe
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.