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

Re: Phonemes and representation: ysrir

Expand Messages
  • Richard Abbott
    Andy, thanks very much for this info - I shall have to track down Rainey s review and Muchiki s work and see what s going on. That will take a little while but
    Message 1 of 2 , Jan 1, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Andy,

      thanks very much for this info - I shall have to track down Rainey's review and Muchiki's work and see what's going on. That will take a little while but is certainly worth doing.

      All the best,

      Richard
      http://www.oldtestamentstudies.net

      --- In AncientBibleHistory@yahoogroups.com, "aj" <andrej1234au@...> wrote:
      >
      > Hi Richard
      >
      > Concerning the correct reading of the inscription on Merneptah's Victory Stele, I dug up some interesting material which certainly suggests the opposite of that which has to this point been submitted to the list. I'll hopefully post it all in the following weeks, but for the time being will constrain myself to the issue of whether Hebrew z(/tj/) was ever represented in the Egyptian script with any character which we might identify with phonetic /s/.
      >
      > The following is taken from a journal review by Rainey of a published work by one Yoshiyuki Muchiki, which deals with Egyptian proper names in Semitic languages, this being naturally the opposite of what Hoch has compiled and doubtless a valuable resource in the study of phonetic shifts between Egyptian and Semitic languages. It begins with Semitic into Egyptian-:
      >
      > "First of all, it is imperative to clarify the problem of orthography in the Amarna tablets. Yoshiyuki brings two examples where Egyptian (/tj/) is supposedly represented by Semitic z. In each case, the problem is with the method of transcription and not with the phonetics. J. A. Knudtzon (5) made his transcriptions at the beginning of the twentieth century when a standard syllabary taking account of all the polyphonic values had yet to be established. Today it is well known that the signs with z can all be read, especially in Amarna peripheral with /s/ and with /s/."
      >
      > "Now, for the Egyptian words in Semitic languages, Egyptian (/tj/) is attested as s in Phoenician orthography (Yoshiyuki p. 48) from the mid-fifth to the third century B.C. It is represented by [? - absent: author] in personal names from the sixth to the fifth centuries B.C. (p. 182). And in Hebrew the t (/tj/) is simply transcribed by t, which probably means that in the vocable concerned the Egyptian t had already become /t/. It is noteworthy that Egyptian (/tj/) is no longer transcribed in any of these languages by samech!"
      >
      > ('Egyptian Proper Names and Loanwords in North-West Semitic',
      > AF Rainey; 2001)
      >
      > [END]
      >
      > It seems to me that it is accepted that at one time Semitic z was represented by Egyptian /s/, which I can only assume includes the 'door latch' which we find in the word ysrir on Merneptah's 'Israel Stele'.
      >
      > I have long argued that proto-Hebrew knew no Sin, that it must necessarily have used the Samekh or else another phoneme entirely in order to express the /s/ sound, and there is scholarly argument to support this claim, but before I post it perhaps you'd care to take a glance at the image of page 434 of Hoch's work which you have kindly sent me. It seems to me that Proto-Semitic IS understood to have known no /s/, that the letter which would become Hebrew Sin was originally vocalised as a /crossed-l/, the fricative which Ratson alerted us too some months back.
      >
      > This takes me back to me suggestion that Egyptian ysr is actually an attempt to represent two - not three - Hebew phonemes, and that it should rightly be vocalised ichl.
      >
      > But more on that later.
      >
      > Andy
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.