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

Where have all the Levant Semitics gone? [was Re: [ANE-2] Re: Paleo-Hebrew

Expand Messages
  • Ariel L. Szczupak
    ... 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
    Message 1 of 69 , Dec 2, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      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@...>
      >To: <mailto:ANE-2%40yahoogroups.com>ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
      >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?
      >
      >Dear Peter,
      >
      >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?


      Ariel.

      [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
      ane.als@...
      ---
      http://yvetteszczupakthomas.blogspot.com/
      http://undiamantbrut.blogspot.com/
    • Ariel L. Szczupak
      ... 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
      Message 69 of 69 , Dec 2, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        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@...>
        >To: <mailto:ANE-2%40yahoogroups.com>ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
        >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?
        >
        >Dear Peter,
        >
        >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?


        Ariel.

        [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
        ane.als@...
        ---
        http://yvetteszczupakthomas.blogspot.com/
        http://undiamantbrut.blogspot.com/
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.