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

[Isaac Fried]

ducky writes

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?

I don't know why Aramaic and Arabic write them with different letters, possibly because of pronunciation differences. The way people speak used to change markedly from place to place before radio and TV came to homogenize the language.

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.

It is very fine to "expand our view" and get out of the "closed bubble", in considering also Aramaic and Arabic, except that the genetic relationship between Hebrew and Arabic is unknown. Entering into the enterprise of comparing Hebrew to Arabic to Aramaic, would require of me making a vast number of assumptions and speculations, as is far beyond my intellectual capacity.
Having said all this, I have to admit that you are right even far beyond what you so vaguely claim. Hebrew has right now 5 (five!) different xet letters. They are
ג, ה, ח, כ, ק
The letter ה is the letter ח with a disconnected left hand leg. The letter ג is the letter ה with a leaning left hand leg. The letter כ is the letter ח resting on its side, and the letter ק is, again, the letter ה with a slightly elongated left hand leg.
How are the words
חָם, 'father in law'
חוֹם, 'heat'
חוֹמָה, 'wall'
חֶמְאָה, 'butter'
all from the same root קם= גם = חם interrelated? By the realization that חוֹמָה is really a קוֹמָה, 'a lofty wall', that חוֹם is really a קוֹם, 'high temperature', that חָם, is 'an adult', and that חֶמְאָה is as solid as a חוֹמָה.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Isaac Fried]

ducky writes

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?

I don't know why Aramaic and Arabic write them with different letters, possibly because of pronunciation differences. The way people speak used to change markedly from place to place before radio and TV came to homogenize the language.

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.

It is very fine to "expand our view" in considering also Aramaic and Arabic, except that the genetic relationship between Hebrew and Arabic is unknown. Entering into the enterprise of comparing Hebrew to Arabic to Aramaic, would require making a vast amount of assumptions and speculations as is far beyond my intellectual capacity.
Having said all this, I have to admit that you are right even far beyond what you so vaguely claim. Hebrew has right now 5 (five!) different xet letters. They are
ג, ה, ח, כ, ק
The letter ה is the letter ח with a disconnected left hand leg. The letter ג is the letter ה with a leaning left hand leg. The letter כ is the letter ח resting on its side, and the letter ק is, again, the letter ה with a slightly elongated left hand leg.
How are the words
חָם, 'father in law'
חוֹם, 'heat'
חוֹמָה, 'wall'
חֶמְאָה, 'butter'
all from the same root קם= גם = חם interrelated? By the realization that חוֹמָה is really a קוֹמָה, 'a lofty wall', that חוֹם is really a קוֹם, 'high temperature', that חָם, is 'an adult', and that חֶמְאָה stands up.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[ducky]

Hello Isaac,

I don't know why Aramaic and Arabic write them with different letters, possibly because of pronunciation differences. The way people speak used to change markedly from place to place before radio and TV came to homogenize the language.

Of course, they pronounce it differently.
But why is it that they pronounce one צ as D, one as T and one as Q (and later Aying).
If it was just their pronunciation of צ - then we expect to see their pronunciation the same with every root that Hebrew has צ.
the fact that the Hebrew צ is pronounced in Aramaic in three different ways while those three ways are parallels to three other different ways of Arabic shows that the Hebrew צ is actually a combination of three Semitic consonants.

It is very fine to "expand our view" in considering also Aramaic and Arabic, except that the genetic relationship between Hebrew and Arabic is unknown.

When it comes to the roots, every Semitic language is fine to be compared too since most of the Semitic roots are seen in every Semitic language.
So why not to use them as a tool for the examination of the consonants?


As for the rest of your comment...
This is not part of the issue, but I agree (mostly) about your linking-method.
(and it is not "Hebrew has" - but it is "Semitic has" - because the links that you do is valid to every language).

[Isaac Fried]

ducky writes

But why is it that they pronounce one צ as D, one as T and one as Q (and later Aying).

Why some people speak one way and some people speak another way is a mystery. Wine drinkers speak one way and beer drinkers speak another way. Pita eaters speak one way and baguette eaters speak another way.
I think we could easily agree that isolated people tend to modify their speech. I imagine that isolated Hebrew tribes in isolated villages, encampments, and even suburbs, developed a slightly different kind of Hebrew patois. When these dialects mixed somehow together they enriched the language with new words, the same way Hebrew benefited from kindred languages.
It is conceivable that some people called snow שֶלֶךְ because it is being מוּשלך, 'thrown down', as in Ps. 147:17. Other people called it שֶלֶק, while still other people called it שֶלֶג, which stuck.
See also family of words such as
גשר, חשר, כשר, קשר
I agree that looking at similar roots in kindred languages could be of some interest as to a deeper insight into their very basic meaning. Take for example the Hebrew act רצח, 'murder'. There is a corresponding Arab root رضح, 'crush'. Namely, to murder someone is to smash the victim's head. Good. But this we understood in Xeider at age 7 without the benefit of "other Semitic languages."
As to the "repeating" letters such as צ3, צ2, צ1 I don't see what is the point of all this. Sorry.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[ducky]

Isaac,

you're not following the point.

I don't talk about the different accent in general.
that is obvious that accents are wide and different from place to place.

but if you see that the Aramaic pronounce the Hebrew צ as צ whenever the Arabic pronounce it as one type of letter
and Aramaic pronounce the Hebrew צ as ט whenever the Arabic pronounce it as a second type of letter
and Aramaic pronounce the Hebrew צ as ק/ע whenever the Arabic pronounce it as a third type of letter

then you don't just say "different accent" and that's it.

but you realize that the Hebrew צ represents three types of consonants, which then, you can say that each one of these consonants has a different accent in Arabic, and different accents in Aramaic, and one accent in Hebrew.

To tell you the truth, I can't realize how you don't get it.
Does my explanation is so bad?

I advise you to just take a grammar book, you would probably find a small chapter at the beginning of it, and I'm sure you would get a better explanation than what I can give.

[Isaac Fried]

Ducky says

then you don't just say "different accent" and that's it.

They are not different "accents", but rather distinct regular mutations of certain letters. As I have said: some say גשר, some say חשר, and some say קשר, yet it is one and the same word meaning 'tie, connect, link, fasten', with only some slight built-in shifts of contextual meaning.

but you realize that the Hebrew צ represents three types of consonants, which then, you can say that each one of these consonants has a different accent in Arabic, and different accents in Aramaic, and one accent in Hebrew.

No, I don't realize "that the Hebrew צ represents three types of consonants". What are the three "types" of consonants? You yourself claim they don't exist any more, having disappeared or "merged" into a single present day צ. But how did they "merge" without leaving any trace or vestige in the biblical root system to remind us of their previous existence?
I am only interested in the Hebrew side of the story, what happens, or happened, in Aramaic and Arabic is of no interest to me. I want you to please justify to me the affair of "the three different צ letters" from within Hebrew itself. I am really not interested in the question as to why the Arameans prefer to call the Hebrew צבי, 'deer' (related to the German "tier", 'animal'?), טביא and not עביא.

To tell you the truth, I can't realize how you don't get it.

I just don't see what there is to "get" here. I am sorry.
I also still don't see the purpose of this historic-semantic-phonetic exercise. Hebrew has צעק and זעק with צ = ז. Also
זמר, סמר, צמר
and more. This we know.

I have taken your advice and have just looked up Edward Horowitz's book "How The Hebrew Language Grew". In chapter 6, starting on page 102 he indeed discusses "twin" and "triplet" letters in Hebrew. Among other things, he claims that there are in Hebrew, even now, at this very moment, two "different" letters ז zayin, as in the two "different" roots זרע corresponding to the two distinct words זָרַע, 'sow', and זְרוֹעַ, 'arm'. I reject this argument, here, now, off hand and unhesitatingly. The root זרע, a variant of שרע, means spread, and it applies equally to זֶרָע, 'seed',and to זְרוֹעַ, 'arm'. There needs to be no "horizontal" connection whatsoever between different words derived from the same Hebrew root: לזרוֹע, 'to sow', is not to scatter seed by a זרוֹע, by a deft arm.
There is no, and there can not be, a Hebrew root זרע specific to זְרוֹעַ, 'the arm link of the human hand'.
I am not sure why Horowitz does not go on to claim in his book that there are also 6 "different" כ letters in Hebrew, corresponding to 6 "different" roots כפר of which the different words
כפיר, כפוֹר, כפר, כפורת, כפירה, כֹּפֶר ?
Otherwise, his book is worth looking at.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[ducky]

Hello Isaac,

According to your comment, it seems that it is not that you don't understand the point, it is that you're not even in the direction.

Your view of the roots is fine and I agree with the principle.
but let's drop it for now, and clear our head to another view that doesn't contradict yours.

I must use other languages to explain that. I will use only Arabic and Aramaic even though it is supported by other languages as well.

So I will try again:

Arabic has the consonant Z and the consonant TH (pronounced as THis).
As you know, Hebrew doesn't have the consonant TH (or this sound as a phoneme).
Hebrew doesn't have that letter.
Other languages like Ugarit for example also have the TH consonant.
But Hebrew doesn't.

So now we ask ourselves... How are the roots that are written with TH in Arabic are written in Hebrew?
For example, Arabic's:
א-TH-N
TH-Y-B
TH-H-B
We see in Hebrew that it is written with the letter Z (because Hebrew doesn't have a letter of TH, right?)
So it is in Hebrew:
אזן
זאב
זהב

And those roots, that are written in Arabic with TH and in Hebrew with Z, are written in Aramaic with a D
אדנא
דיבא
דהב
So here we see triple parallelism of the consonants
Arabic's TH = Aramaic's D = Hebrew Z

Now let's look on Arabic roots that use the letter Z. For example:
Z-H-R
Z-H'-L
G-Z-L

Aramaic :
זהר
זחל
גזל

Hebrew:
זהר
זחל
גזל

So here we see triple parallelism of the consonants
Arabic's Z = Aramaic's Z = Hebrew Z

So you see that there is an "organized system" in the matter of the consonants in each language.
If it was just an accent of the speakers then we would see a mess:
as one time Arabic's TH = Aramaic D
and one time Arabic's TH = Aramaic Z
and so on...

The fact that there is a pattern allows us to understand the letter Z in Hebrew.
Because now, when we look at the other languages and compare the roots, we can know what kind of letter Z is it.
Is it an original Semitic Z?
or is it a Z that is based on the Semitic TH?

And notice that this view is based on the time when these consonants were solid (as its starting point).
While your view takes it even to the more historic time when the consonants, in the mouth of the speaker, are
based on "consonants-groups"
And those two don't contradict each other.

I hope this is better.

[Isaac Fried]

Ducky writes

According to your comment, it seems that it is not that you don't understand the point, it is that you're not even in the direction.

I think I do understand your thesis. You claim that once upon a time, long long ago, when the earth was still young, before script was even contemplated, there were several letters (sounds?) zayin, say zz, dz, tz, sz, and more.
All I can say to this is peut etre que oui peut etre que non. So what? The Hebrews learned to speak from the bees, from זמזוּם הדבורים.
Now comes the proof, based on the method of "parallelism of the consonants", for which you say:

I must use other languages to explain that. I will use only Arabic and Aramaic even though it is supported by other languages as well.

Here, as soon as I hear Arabic and Aramaic, I stop listening.
You say that Hebrew has אֹזֶן, 'ear', but Aramaic has it as אוּדְנָא. Good, but Hebrew has also אֶדֶן (Ex. 26:19), which is actually an אֶזֶן. Hebrew has דד and שד. Also זֵד and שֵד. Also יד and צד. Also גזל and גדל.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[ducky]

Isaac

It is not once upon a time.
It is the facts that we see in the Semitic languages.
The Semitic languages didn't start pronouncing them just like that with a written agreement between themselves that "When I say this consonant you say that consonant".

You use the word אזן for an example.
But why is it that every time אזן means "ear" it acts the same.
According to you, we should see in Hebrew אזן and אדן for the same meaning of "ear" - after all, it is just an accent of the consonant. And also we would see in Arabic אזן אדן and אד'ן for the same meaning of Ear.
ְAnd the same with Aramaic.
So how come it didn't happen?

By the way, the "once upon of time" fits more to your view. A beginning of the basic creations of roots. and I agree.
But the view I write here starts at a later point when the roots were more or less established with the usage of specific consonants.

You try opposing this view because you have your own one and maybe you feel it conflicts it.
but it doesn't.
Just draw a line between those two, and understand that both of them are right.
Because you cannot ignore the facts that we see on "paper".

Let's see if we can understand this principle in another way.
English uses the letter S to define both the Hebrew's ס and Hebrew's ש
ירושלים - Jerusalem
שמשון - Samson

יוסף - Joseph
סדום - Sodom

The fact that English writes these words with the same letter doesn't mean that it came to represent one Semitic consonant.
And so, when one sees the English letter S in a Hebrew/Semitic word, he should check and see what original consonant is represented in the English S.
And then he can say that this S represents ש
and that S represents the ס

[Isaac Fried]

ducky writes

The Semitic languages didn't start pronouncing them just like that with a written agreement between themselves that "When I say this consonant you say that consonant".

I agree with you that when speakers of a language spread out and geographically separate they tend to mutate "near" consonants (and possibly vowels too) in a certain systematic way. What is the aesthetic-psychological-lingual-physiological-phonetic mechanism behind this is beyond me, but that is certainly what happened to the different European languages. Reconstructing the common tongue is the aim and purpose of the etymological studies of these languages.
This also conceivably happened in Hebrew, when different tribes moved apart to remote parts of the land. Yet when they met they mutually enriched the language with new words. Hebrew (or some branch of it) had the word אֹזֶן for 'ear'. Then the need arose for a name for the horizontal מאוּזנים ties as in Ex. 26:19. The tie extends to the right and to the left like a pair of ears sticking out of the head. So, it comes to mind to call them אֶזֶן, 'ear like'. However, to save the language from becoming a z-z language, the linguistically astute people picked another extant z and called it אֶדזֶן, and then simply אֶדֶן (but not עֶטֶן.)
This is a nice story about the growth of the language, but it is of no interest to me.
What is of interest to me is that right now Hebrew has two (equivalent) letters z, one written as ז and the other, slightly differently, as ד. This is the basis for the internal (internal!) etymology of the Hebrew language.
One looks with amazement at the two words
גְזֶלָה, 'robbery' and גוֹזָל, 'chick'
barely believing it possible that such two remote word as 'robbery' and 'chick' are the offspring of the same mother root גזל GZL. But the explanation to this becomes simple when we realize that
גזל = גדל.
By this ז = ד equality גוֹזל is a גוֹדל, a growing fledgling, while גזלה is גדלה, amassing loot (שלל = תלל).

Isaac Fried, Boston University