Question on the name Samuel from 1 Sam 1:20

[Isaac Fried]

Yes, indeed, the shin/sin occurrence in the HB may be a a mere niqud concession to dialectical differences in the vocalization of Hebrew. Detached and isolated communities tend to spontaneously shift the way they speak their original tongue, depending on how their eye and ear integrate similarly sounding words into the language. Recall the remarkable שִׁבֹּלֶת - סִבֹּלֶת story of Judges 12:6.
Take for example the word שפה, 'lip', as in Job 32:20
אֲדַבְּרָה וְיִרְוַח לִי אֶפְתַּח שְׂפָתַי וְאֶעֱנֶה
NIV: "I must speak and find relief; I must open my lips and reply"
Written as ספה safah causes the ear and eye to immediately relate it to the word סַף, 'threshold', (here of the mouth) or even סוֹף, 'end'. Written as שפה, and possibly having been variously pronounced as shafah, causes the eye to relate it to the נִשְׁפֶּה, 'elevated', of Isaiah 13:2
עַל הַר נִשְׁפֶּה שְׂאוּ נֵס
KJV: "Lift ye up a banner upon the high mountain"
The word עֶשֶׂר, 'ten', is, likewise, certainly עֶשֶׁר, 'richness', of the cluster of so many items, in a slightly different costume for distinction.
The Hebrew number (number = numer = name given to a quantity) ארבע, 'four', is also from רב, 'many'. So: one, two, three, many....

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

[ducky]

Hi Jonathan,

Thanks, and thanks for that info.

**************
Hi Isaac,

What you wrote is true, and you picked a simple example. But it goes even deeper. the S is even related to the Q (never mind how now)
And you showed the relation between שפה and סף,
and you can also see that סף is actually קו
these two words are based on the same source.

But what you wrote (and What I added now) is not relevant to this discussion.
Because this thing is a very primitive state.
A state that was before the Semitic languages even separated and became independent.

(Because if it was after the langauges separated, then the "randomization" was different in each language. And the fact that the roots in each Semitic lanaguges keeps the sound according to the same "letter" - tells us that when they were separated, there was already an "accurated" sound for each root (even if it a primitive root)).

*
And this subject of the two phonemes that the ש represented (actually three), can start only when the roots were "accpeted".

Because if not, then we wouldn't see a match between the separation of שׁ & שׂ in other languages as well.

[kwrandolph]

Karl,
As you can see from my last post, what is attributed to Aramaic influence is the merging of /ś/ and /s/, which is the opposite of your contention. The linguistic evidence points toward the existence of /ś/ and /š/ in Hebrew before late Aramaic influence. These two phonemes were represented by the letter ש. The phone /s/ existed and had always been represented by the letter ס

First of all, I never heard of this Gary Rendsburg before, so the name means nothing to me. Secondly, many of his claims are contradicted by the evidence. Thirdly, as pertains this discussion, he includes much that is post-Biblical Hebrew, post-Biblical by centuries whereas I limit my discussion here to Biblical Hebrew.

The alphabet was invented by the Hebrews. Moses in the 15th century BC wrote Hebrew. The exact font is unknown, probably similar to Proto-Sinaitic, but the alphabet contained 22 consonants indicating 22 phonemes. The font we know as Archaic Hebrew was adopted by the Phoenicians about 1000 BC. From there the Phoenicians spread the alphabet throughout the ancient world. We can draw some clues as to the pronunciations by how the consonants were adopted by other languages. Examples include that ט came out as Θ in Greek, and ס came out as X in Latin and Ξ in Greek. There’s some evidence that ס maintained the X sound as late as Ezra and Nehemiah. The Greeks retained even the names of most of the letters as they came from Hebrew through Phoenician.

There’s absolutely no evidence that Hebrew had more than one phoneme for the letter ש during Biblical times.

Now you claim otherwise, where is your evidence and where is that evidence found? I want some real evidence, not some made-up theory such as proto-Semitic.

I maintain that Biblical Hebrew ceased being spoken as a native tongue shortly after the Babylonian Exile. Already many of those who went to Judea after the exile spoke Hebrew only as a learned, second language. There’s evidence for that in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. Decades earlier, Daniel wrote half his book in Aramaic, assuming that his readers knew Aramaic. The bottom line is that the evidence points to the fact that mid to late Second Temple Hebrew pronunciation was already heavily influenced by Aramaic. If Aramaic had two phonemes for ש, as the evidence seems to indicate, that is evidence that Aramaic speaking readers of Hebrew imported the two phonemes into Hebrew as they read the Hebrew texts. But this forum is about Biblical Hebrew, not the Aramaic corruption of post-Biblical Hebrew.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Isaac Fried]

David writes

What you wrote is true, and you picked a simple example. But it goes even deeper. the S is even related to the Q (never mind how now)

Yes, indeed, the Hebrew roots שאה, סאה, גאה, קאה express essentially the same idea.

and you can also see that סף is actually קו

Yes, and קו is actually גב.

these two words are based on the same source.

It is not clear to me what is this "source." It all comes from the depth of the soul of the Hebrew speaker.

A state that was before the Semitic languages even separated and became independent.

The Semitic languages separated the day next to their invention as soon as the individual families dispersed back to their separate caves and tents.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

[Refael Shalev]

Hi David,

I saw your wise reply and I understand what you wrote but I want to ask a counter question:

What is the accurate sound of the word "son" ( בן)?
In aramaic son is בר so if roots did have an accurate sound in the case of ש why it isn't so accurate in the case I mentioned?

I think that שמואל is ש+מ+אל whom from god like moab from the father.

[ducky]

Hi Refael,
(Sorry for the long comment)


First, just a note.
The word בר for "son" is also found in Ugarit and also in Edomite (if I'm not mistaken).
So I don't know if it can be considered an "aramaic" form.
(But I need to read about it more before I'll "talk").

**
Anyway, I'll give another example to what you're saying.

You're saying, for example, that some consonants do change in time
And I'' use another clear example for that
In Aramaic the צ turned to ק and then also turned to ע

As ארץ - then ארקא - then ארעא
or מחץ - then מחק - then מחע (that turned to מחא because of the two guttural ח/ע)

And here we see that the usage of the letter was changed as well.
(like you said about בן/בר)
***

But what we see in the case of ש is different.
Because, as I said before, the examination is based not by looking at the same language, and not by looking at close languages.
But we see that the roots that are writeen with ש in Hebrew and differed by sounds, are the same roots that are differed by sounds also in languages as Aabic and Ge'ez.
And that means that these roots were different in sounds from a very old state.
And that "so-called" change didn't happen when the languages were separated - but before that.
Because if there was a change after the lanaguages were separated, at the time that each one was independent, then we won't see a match in the roots between the languages.
But we would see a very random roots for each language.

***
There is no problem to see that some letters changed their sounds through time.
But when it happens, it actually happens in all of the roots that have this letter.

Take the letter ק for example.
The Etheiopian pronounce it as emphatic from the front of their throat.
The Arabic pronounce it as emphatic from the back of their throat.
But...
there are accents in Arabic that pronounce the ק as א.
and some pronounce it as ג
(for example: Qalbi=Galbi=Albi (my heart))

(and some, by the way, pronoucne it just as a regular K)

But those who pronounce the ק in their way, pronounce all of the ק that way (each one and its accent) - and not just a bunch of roots.
And it is not that they take one root and pronounce it as Q, and another root as א and another root as G.

I mean, when there is a change in sound for some consonant - this chaneg is full.

But in the case of the ש
if there was a change, then the expectation would be that all letter ש would act the same.
if it is S, then just S
and if it is SH, then just SH
(unless there is a very narrow group of words)

**
And by the way, I gave the example of the Aramaic צ that turned into ק and then ע
And that case could also be used for explaining the case of the ש

Because this צ that is changed in Aramaic to a different sound is not Every צ
but it is just the צ that parallel to the Arabic ض
And that shows you that when Aramaic "chose" to change the sound of a letter - the letter itself was irrelevant.
But what was relevant is the phoneme that the letter represented
(because צ represented three phonemes)
and only the צ that represented the specific phoneme - was changed.

And that what happend with the ש
the letter ש represented three phoneme (S' - SH - TH).

And only the letter ש that represented the specific phoneme was changed to S
(and the phoneme that represented the TH collided with the SH)

***
So letters are not very relevant.

The Hebrews used the Canaanite letters which didn't represent all of the sounds.
And Hebrews, while pronouncing the sound of S' - used the letter ש to represent that sound (along with other sounds)
But it doesn't mean that they lost their pronunciation just because they used "some letter"

*
If I'll write the name Hannah for חנה
and I'll write the name Abraham for אברהם

I'll use the letter H for both of the names.
But the letter H of Hannah is different than the letter H of Abraham.
But when I'm using the English letters, I use what I have.
But it doesn't mean this letter H is the "Same letter" for me.

And let's just say that tommorow the English speakers would adopt the guttural sounds (as letter ח)
So tommorow, when the English speaker would read the name Hannah - He will pronounce that H as guttural ח.
But he wouldn't do that for Abraham.
Because even though he will see the same letter H in both of the names, He will differ this H from that H - because he knows that even though it is the same letter - each one represents another sound.

[Isaac Fried]

Ducky writes

And that what happend with the ש
the letter ש represented three phoneme (S' - SH - TH).
And only the letter ש that represented the specific phoneme was changed to S
(and the phoneme that represented the TH collided with the SH)
***
So letters are not very relevant.

I must say I am baffled by the logic applied to the historical narrative. May we have please three Hebrew (Hebrew, not Ge'ez!) examples to words with the three "phonemes" S' - SH - TH. Also to the "collision" of TH with SH.
The Hebrew letter sin is the letter shin with a dot placed on its left tooth to alert us to the fact that now, by consensus, שפה, 'lip' is to be pronounced SAFAH, not SHAFAH.
Notice that the Hebrew roots
שׁבע, שׂבע, שׁוע, סבא, שׁפע
(and many more) are essentially of the same idea. The number שֶׁבַע, seven', is certainly the number of שֶׁפַע, 'plenty'.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

[ducky]

Hi Isaac,

The letters ש in the word שלש (three) for example, represented the phoneme TH (as in the word "thing").

compare the root with Aramaic and Arabic.
(basically, the comparison is with many languages, but in this case let's look at three)

Hebrew: שלש/שלוש (SHaloSH)
Arabic: THalaaTH
Aramaic: תלת (TlaT)

There is a triangle of SH/TH/T which happens in many cases.
When there is such a triangle - then we know that the ש is a specific ש which its phoneme is TH

if we take another case
Hebrew: שלום (SHalom)
Arabic: Salaam
Aramaic: שלם (Shlam)

Now we see another "triangle"
Here, the phoneme is SH

and another word:
Hebrew: עשר (eSer)
Arabic: aSHr
Aramaic: עשר/עסר (aSar)

now there is another triangle.
Here, the phoneme is S'
*****

These "triangles" (actually more than just three langauges) repeat in a match for a lot of words.
And by that comparisons, you can see that the ש in these three word came from another phoneme.

*************************************************
And I don't know why are you so baffled.

You can see this principle for yourself in other letters as well.

You know, for example, the sound of the letter ע=Ayin, right?

Now ask yourself, why the name of the city עזה is written in English as "Gaza"?
Where did this G sound came from?
After all, Hebrew writes it with ע.

Well also here, the Hebrew's ע represented two phonemes:
1. Guttural
2. Soft G

And this city was written in Akkadian with KH, and Arabic writes it with GH, and Egyptian wrote that with G, and so on...

This Hebrew letter ע in that word came from the soft G phoneme, and not from the guttural one.

So you actually have two ע in Hebrew
and three ש
and three צ
and two ח
and two ז

*****
And of course, there are exceptions
and of course, that even in the same language you can see some "switches"
But there is a very wide common pattern for that.

And with that, without getting deep too much on when and how,
This pattern just shows the existance of Semitic phonemes in the roots as they were kept.
And some phonemes were probably were lost in Hebrew in a very ancient time, and some of them were lost later, and some of them after that.

in the matter of the left ש, we can say that already in the Biblical era, it was turned into a regular S - because we see that some words in the early books of the bible that were written with left ש, were written in the late books with ס - which can tell about the late accent of that left ש - as we pronoounce it untill today.

**
But once again, you started your post with the will to ignore other languages.
And you cannot ignore that.
Because if you see that Hebrew differs in sounds the same roots that are differed in sound in other not-related languages.
This match can not be couincident
There must be an ancient source for that which each language kept.
And now, when you can see the roots in many languages, you cannot just say that it just happens that each language chose "by their natural heart" the exact same roots that another language chose.

****************
And by the way,
שבע, שפע and so on, Also came from the same souce of קו and סף

[Isaac Fried]

Ducky writes

Now ask yourself, why the name of the city עזה is written in English as "Gaza"?

I am not interested in this question.

So you actually have two ע in Hebrew
and three ש
and three צ
and two ח
and two ז

I did not realize we are so rich in "phonemes". May we have examples to two Hebrew words with two "different" ח and to two Hebrew words with two "different" ז?

And some phonemes were probably were lost in Hebrew in a very ancient time, and some of them were lost later, and some of them after that.

חבל על דאבדין ולא משתכחין

And by the way,
שבע, שפע and so on, Also came from the same souce of קו and סף

This business of the "source" still alludes me.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

[Isaac Fried]

Sorry, it is elude not allude

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com