At 02:31 PM 12/2/2008, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>It should have a colophon, no? or at least a date?
>Peter T. Daniels <mailto:grammatim%40verizon.net>grammatim@...
>From: Yitzhak Sapir <<mailto:yitzhaksapir%40gmail.com>yitzhaksapir@...>
>Sent: Monday, December 1, 2008 8:53:04 PM
>Subject: Re: [ANE-2] Re: Paleo-Hebrew
>On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 10:26 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > Which means that (even if the tablet is genuine, and even if the ?Hebrew
> > docket on it is genuine) there's no hope of knowing where it came from.
> > At which "LS" (as you call it)-speaking sites were cuneiform economic
> > documents in use in the NB period? --
> > Peter T. Daniels grammatim@verizon. net
> > I know Laurie Pearce as a specialist in mathematical tablets. Is that
> > irrelevant? Why would a mathematical tablet bear a ?Hebrew docket?
>I don't call anything "LS."
That would be me, and I use the ad-hoc term (Levant Semitic) for the
2nd & early 1st mbc when the linguistic situation is somewhat messy.
I'm much less familiar with the evidence from the NB period. My
impression is that by that time all we have is Aramaic & Hebrew, with
a hypothetical Phoenician, assumed to be different from Punic.
Nabatean & Syriac come only later in the 1st mbc. Is that correct? Is
there really no evidence of mid-1st mbc Phoenician? And what is the
current body of evidence and "common wisdom" about Samaritan?
[100% bona fide dilettante ... delecto ergo sum!]
Ariel L. Szczupak
AMIS-JLM (Ricercar Ltd.)
POB 4707, Jerusalem, Israel 91406
Phone: +972-2-5619660 Fax: +972-2-5634203