The sounds of letter ש=Shin (בשם=balsam)

[ducky]

Hello,

Hebrew uses only 22 letters, but it didn't have only 22 sound.
There are some letters who had more than one sounds (as different phonemes).
Zayin=ז represented two consonants.
Het=ח represented two consonants.
Ayin=g represented two consonants.
Tsadi=צ represented three consonants.
and
Shin=ש represented three consonants.

When it comes as Right Shin=שׁ it represented two sounds.
1. SH Like in the word שלום.
2. TH (like in the word Thing) Like in the word שלוש (both of the ש).
Eventually, those sounds collided into one sound SH.

And what about the Left Shin=שׂ?
This sound was like an S but with a rolled tongue. (kinda hard to produce and no wonder why Hebrew gave it up later).
Eventually, it was combined with the regular S sound (Like letter Samekh=ס).

And here is a nice anecdote about this, which concerns the Greek/Latin (and English)...
I saw on youtube a professor (or Ph.D.) that pointed at the word בשם=bosem.
This word was pronounced back then as Busm (and also as Basm)
And when the Greek heard the word "Basm" with the left Shin, they also heard the letter L inside it because of the "rolled tongue".
And this is why you say "Balsam" (as Balsamic vinegar) as a vinegar who gives a smell.
the "LS" in the word "Balsam" is because of the sound of the left Shin which was pronounced as S with a rolled tongue.

[Isaac Fried]

ducky wrote

Hebrew uses only 22 letters, but it didn't have only 22 sound(s).
There are some letters who had more than one sounds (as different phonemes).
Zayin=ז represented two consonants.
Het=ח represented two consonants.
Ayin=g represented two consonants.
Tsadi=צ represented three consonants.
and
Shin=ש represented three consonants

Would you bring examples please for the "double" ז, for the "double" ח and for the "triple" צ, so that we (OK I) better understand this thing of the "different phonemes"?
Of course, different people sound the the same letter somewhat differently, but I think you mean here something deeper, so show us some examples and we will better understand what you have in mind.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[ducky]

Hello Isaac,

When it comes to letter Z, it is enough that you'd look at the Aramaic translation and ask yourself why some Hebrew words with the letter Z is found in Aramaic with D and sometimes with Z. (even though the examination is based on a lot of Languages: Ugarit, Arabic, Akkadian, Ethiopian, and the South-Arabian languages).
For example:
Hebrew = אזן; Aramaic = אדנא
Here you see that the Hebrew Z is parallel to Aramaic D.
But...
Hebrew = מאזנים; Aramaic = מאזניא (Daniel 5:27).
Here it is written Z in both languages.
It seems that the Hebrew Z in the two Hebrew words of אזן=Ear and מאזנים=Scale is not the same consonant.
And the link that people do between the "scale" and the "ear" is considered to be a common etymology.

Each language has its own "sound change" system.
And some acts like Hebrew and some not.

As for letter Het - there was a guttural one and not-guttural one.
The not-guttural was sound exactly as the letter כ without Dagesh.
But those two sounds didn't live together.
the כ was always K, and only when the not-guttural-Het combined with the guttural-Het in the speech, Only then the כ got its second sound as KH (as an allophone and not as a phoneme).

So if we talk again about common Etymology, we should ask, is there a link between the word חרב=sword and the verb חרב as destructing (which actually means dry)?
According to the examination - No.
These are two different roots which used a different consonant.
ְAnd one can also wonder about the private name Rachel, Why is it written with a "ch"?
could it be that this name was actually having the non-guttural-Het sound?

As for the Tsadi - the same thing
you can compare with the Aramaic (I said Aramaic because it is easy to check) and ask
Why Hebrew's אצבע = Aramaic's אצבע
Hebrew's צבי = Aramaic's טביא
Hebrew's ארץ = Aramaic's ארקא/ארעא (notice that Aramaic has an internal process here).
Aramaic writes each word with a different letter. Why? Because the צ is actually not the same consonants, it is only that the three consonants were represented by the same letter.

It is more complicated (not in the way of understanding but in the matter of more information) and I wrote the simple way to understand that some letters represented more than one Historic Semitic Sound.

As for the absolute time when the process happened in Hebrew, it is hard to know.
ְAnd I guess that some of the consonants combined their sounds to one already in the very ancient time, while others later.
Anyway, it is always an evolutional thing.

[Isaac Fried]

ducky,
Please answer my question and bring us hebrew (Hebrew!) examples please for the "double" ז, for the "double" ח and for the "triple" צ.
You could bring us, say three Hebrew (Hebrew!) roots with a "double" ז, three Hebrew roots with a "double" ח and three Hebrew roots with a "triple" צ.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Isaac Fried]

ducky writes

As for the Tsadi - the same thing
you can compare with the Aramaic (I said Aramaic because it is easy to check) and ask
Why Hebrew's אצבע = Aramaic's אצבע
Hebrew's צבי = Aramaic's טביא
Hebrew's ארץ = Aramaic's ארקא/ארעא (notice that Aramaic has an internal process here).
Aramaic writes each word with a different letter. Why? Because the צ is actually not the same consonants, it is only that the three consonants were represented by the same letter.

I don't ask this "why" למה about Aramaic (see below the famous cute Hebrew children's song הוּדי חמוּדי - למה). I want it in Hebrew. I really want to understand this thing about "the צ is actually not the same consonants, it is only that the three consonants were represented by the same letter." Is the letter צ in my name יצחק a "three in one"?

It is more complicated (not in the way of understanding but in the matter of more information) and I wrote the simple way to understand that some letters represented more than one Historic Semitic Sound.

I am afraid that "Historic Semitic Sound" is mere mythology, a legend, but I may be wrong.
I recall it being remarked here before that
צבי = צב-היא, 'deer'
is from the root צב, or צבה, which is a member of the root family
דב, זב, טב, סב, צב, שב
תו
דף, טף, יף, סף, צף, שף
implying 'full bodied'. From this family we have the animal names
דוֹב, זאב, צב, צבי, צבוע, צפע, שפן, שפיפוֹן
Now this beloved song: why-why-why.
הוּדי חמוּדי (למה) משה דפנא

זה הודי חמודי הוא ילד קטן.
גר הוא הרחק שם בעמק בית שאן.
עיניים לו תכלת וראש לבנבן.
פה לו מתוק מחייך ומקשן.
שואל בלי הרף הוא: למה זה כך?
"למה ולמה" מעביר הוא בסך.
הודי חמודי, הוא בן אביטל,
שאלה ראשונה את אביהו שאל:
למה טלה עת יפתח את הפה
יודע לומר לי אך מֶה ורק מֶה?
ולמה צביה הפרה החומה
יודעת לומר לי גם מוּ וגם מָה?
הודי חמודי, הוא בן אביטל,
שאלה שניה את אביהו שאל:
למה העגל הרץ למרחב
שולח למעלה למעלה זנב.
ולמה צנונית קטנה, אדומה
שולחת זנב דק אל תוך אדמה?
הודי חמודי, הוא בן אביטל,
שאלה שלישית את אביהו שאל:
למה השמש תמיד הוא ראשון
לרדת בערב לשכב ולישון.
ולמה ירח הוא דווקא בליל
יוצא מביתו והולך לטייל?
"למה ולמה" רבות עוד שאל
הודי חמודי, הוא בן אביטל;
למה אוהב כה הצל את העץ?
מבוקר עד ערב אצלו הוא רובץ.
למה בורח הצל מהאור -
השמש מציץ בו, נסוג הוא אחור.
למה הרוח מכה אילנות?
ולמה בוכים כה יונים ויונות?
למה כנפיים ניתנו רק עוף? -
ועוד הוא שואל בלי קץ ובלי סוף.
אך תענהו אם כך ואם כך -
ו"למה" חדש אז מפיהו יצמח.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[ducky]

Hello Isaac

Maybe I wrote my words in a bad way and I hope I didn't confuse you (and others).

When I say three sounds, first I mean it as historical sounds.
meaning that these historical consonants was represented by the same letter and also, in time, in the speech.
And I can't tell you when did it happen in Hebrew?
because what is the "starting point" of Hebrew?

But if we want to focus on the Biblical era, we can assume that all of the consonants were already combined also in the speech (except for the left Shin, and probably also the second Ayin and Het).
So when it comes to the pronunciation of the letter Tsadi in the Biblical era, it was always the same (as emphatic S). Even though historically, this Tsadi represented three different Semitic consonants.

Second, when I mean three sounds of the Tsadi, I don't mean that the Tsadi (historically) was pronounced according to the choice of the speaker.
but I mean that when we see the letter Tsadi in some root, we need to find out which historical consonant this Tsadi represented. And that is made by comparing the specific root to other Semitic languages and see how this Tsadi is represented there.
When it comes to the letter Tsadi, it is easy to go to Arabic and Aramaic for this comparison.

So when it comes to root צחק
the Tsadi is the same Tsadi as in the word ארץ.
Arabic pronounces it today as something close to Emphatic D. (even though it is assumed that this sound was a little different than the way Arabs pronounce it today).

The letter Het is guttural.

So...
1. I'm talking first about historical Semitic sounds.
2. Hebrew, in the time that we know it, already combined most of the consonants to the 22 letter.
2a. except for the historical Left-Shin sound which was still pronounced.
2b. and probably also the non-guttural Het (KH), and the non-guttural Aying (GH) were pronounced.
3. the letter Tsadi always was pronounced the same, no matter what historical sound it represented.
4. but still, when examining roots and consonants, we should be aware that the one letter Tsadi includes inside it three different consonants.
5. It doesn't need to affect your way of the root-linking method since you are based on even more historical time. I also do it myself (a little bit different than you). But it can help you while you seeing the real consonants behind the letters.
6. You called it a legend, but it is hard to do so because the evidence of the almost perfect parallelism between the Semitic languages cannot be a coincidence.

Hope this is better.

[Isaac Fried]

ducky wrote

When I say three sounds, first I mean it as historical sounds.

First, I think one needs to careful about "historical" claims and inferences.
Second, I think I get a glimpse now as to what you say. You are claiming, if I am correct, that "once upon a time" there were three letters, vocally close to צ, say צ1, צ2, צ3, so that there were "once upon a time" three "different" words such as
צ3חק, צ2חק, צ1חק
of somewhat different meaning.
Is there biblical evidence for this, can you bring us Hebrew (Hebrew!) words each with a "different" צ, or a different ז, etc..?
Saying that the צ of ארץ is "not the same" as the צ of שרץ, because in Arabic it is so and so, and in Aramaic it is so and so makes no sense to me. Sorry, I need concrete Hebrew examples.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[ducky]

Hello Isaac,

In the Semitic languages, it was found that there are 29 consonants, which each one of them has a different sound. This is a fact. (and when I say 29, I mean at least).

Hebrew is part of the Semitic languages, and we see that that the roots are similar and have the same meaning in all (or a lot) of the Semitic languages.
So if we take the root שלם - it is found in the same meaning in the other Semitic languages.
and so are many roots.

and so, scholars found parallels between letters in each and every language.
and they understood where each consonant is represented (in what letter).

Arabic, for example, has 28 letters. So in Arabic, it is very easy to see that each consonant is represented by a different letter (except for the Left Shin that is represented in Arabic together with the Right Shin, also in speech).

Now, one can say that this is all nonsense - like you say. But logically, it must be like that.
If it wasn't like that, then we would see a "mess" when it comes to the roots.
Because if we see the parallelism between Arabic's TH and Hebrew's SH and Aramaic's T in all of the roots, then it cannot be a coincidence.

Arabic-Hebrew-Aramaic
THalaaTH=תלת=שלוש
But...
Salaam=שלם=שלום

Now when we see this in all of the roots, we cannot say it is nonsense because if it was, then we would see a lot of mess - as once the Arabic's TH fits the Aramaic's ש, and once the Arabic's TH fits the Aramai'c's ת and once the Arabic' S fits the Aramaic's SH and once the ת
and of course with a mess in Hebrew also.
It just couldn't be.
We must say that there was a bigger set of consonants that each language handled some of them in its way.
Because we see a system that parallels between a lot of Semitic languages.

and we see parallelism in all of the roots like that.
So we must say that the Hebrew SH of שלוש is not the same Semitic consonant as the SH in the word שלום.
but we do say, that the Hebrews combined these two sounds into one (the SH).

But when it comes to the study of roots, we must know that.

In the song of Deborah, it says in the same verse מחצה and מחקה
It is the same word. one is a Hebrew accent (מחצה), and one is Aramaic accent (מחקה)
also, check the word מעיק and compare it to מציק
(and I wrote here intentionally parallels of Tsadi replaced with Ayin and also with Quph.
and check Jer 10:11 for ארקא=ארעא=ארץ).

These parallels cannot be done with Every Tsadi letter - but only with a Specific Tsadi Letter.

I don't know what concrete proof you're asking. I don't have a recording of ancient Hebrews talking.
All I can show you the historical parallels between the letters, and with that, you can understand that the fact that roots are written with the same letter (which also heard the same) doesn't mean that it represented the same Semitic consonant.
And also remember that I said that the Hebrews combined these sounds in the very ancient time.

[Isaac Fried]

ducky wrote

Now, one can say that this is all nonsense - like you say. But logically, it must be like that.

All I am saying is that I need to see Hebrew examples; which you have brought none yet.

Hebrew is part of the Semitic languages, and we see that that the roots are similar and have the same meaning in all (or a lot) of the Semitic languages.

Indeed, Hebrew and Arabic are related languages, but their genetic relationships is not clear. Also, the relationship in Arabic between speech and script is different than in Hebrew, for historical reasons, and the same goes for Aramaic.
The Arameans call the deer טביא because they find him טוֹב רוֹאי, while the Hebrews call him צבי because they find him נצב צבה ויפה and with a צפירת תפארה on his head. What do we know?

In the song of Deborah, it says in the same verse מחצה and מחקה
It is the same word. one is a Hebrew accent (מחצה), and one is Aramaic accent (מחקה)

Both מחק and מחץ seem to me to be good Hebrew words. The first ends with קאה = גאה and the other one ends with צאה. Consider also the example of זעק and צעק.

Hebrew examples please. One good example will beat a hundred lines of philosophical speculations about Semitic languages and their 29 consonants.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[ducky]

My friend Isaac

Hebrew has already combined most of the consonants to one, so I can't give you an example from inside the Hebrew.
But if you cannot see that in the many parallels that you can check for yourself, then what can I tell you.
it is not about one root or two. you can see that in almost every Hebrew root that you see.
(just find an etymology book that contains the parallelism in the other languages, or check BDB for this also).

The explaining that you gave for מחץ and מחק is just a play.
that is why I said it is important to know the roots.
by the way, just to let you know מחץ=מחק=מחא the exact same root. Weird, right?

And once again, you ask for Hebrew example and I cannot give you one from inside the Hebrew since Hebrew uses only 22 letters which the consonants were already combined. So the only thing I can show you is the parallelism.
And listen... this is not a philosophic thing - this is pure logic.
And I guess that you don't have a problem with logic.

When you see the facts of the number of Semitic languages, and then you see the parallelism in the different languages which are "fixed" by an "organized "system. You can't ignore that.

And then when you look at the Hebrew roots, there is no problem to see it as it is, but also, when examining the roots, you set them according to the right order.
as זקן = old is not really related to זקן=beard
since it is Hebrew and these roots use the same letter, so it is easy to consider that.
But if they were really the same root, then why Aramaic write them with different letters, and so Arabic does.
shouldn't we expect it to be the same in every language?
the fact that other languages write these words using different roots plus the fact that this parallelism of the Hebrew Z to another Semitic consonant TH (THis) plus the fact that this Semitic consonant act as D in Aramaic, TH in Arabic, and Z in Hebrew - all of this fit the known system.
And so, there is nothing to be "surprised" about this - since it fits the known parallelism system.

If you want to look at the Hebrew language as if it evolved inside of a closed bubble, then it is your choice.
But I guess you would accept the fact that Hebrew is part of the Semitic family, and so while examining Hebrew (or any other language) a lot of times, we need to expand our view and look at the behavior of the family.