Question on the name Samuel from 1 Sam 1:20

[kwrandolph]

One thing to consider: when Samuel was written, before the Babylonian Exile, the Sin and Shin were one letter with a single pronunciation. With that in mind, שמו is a Qal Qatal 3rd person masculine singular from the root normally listed as שים meaning “to place” with a third person singular masculine suffix. Thus the meaning of the name is “God placed him” in response to prayer.

Karl W. Randolph.

[ducky]

the letter ש had two sounds as two phonemes:
1. Shin
2. S with a rolled tongue.

and Hebrew actually kept these sounds while most semitic languages lost the "rolled tongue S".

***
If you compare the roots of Hebrew and Arabic for example, there is a paralllism between the
Hebrew ש=S to an Arabic SH
And Hebrew ש=SH to an Arabic S (Sometime also the TH if the TH is the original phoneme).

This thing cannot be happening if there was not an original two phonemes to the Hebrew ש.
Because if not - there was not an order to the parallelism and it was just random.

For example:
ש=SH
1. שלום = salaam
2. ראש = ra's

ש=S
1. שמאל = Shimaal
2. שכר = SH-K-R

So this parallelism cannot be happen if there was only one sound to the Hebrew ש
because then, we wouldn't see a match between Hebrew and Arabic (which shows that also Arabic kept (in its way) thess differences of the two original ש).

[ducky]

Another nice example is the Hebrew word בשם (reffers to scent).
The ש is בשם is S (originally a rolled tongued S).

Bcause of the rolled tongue, when the Greek heard the word בשם - they heard also the letter L (because of the rolled tongue)

And so, they wrote it as "balsam"

And that is how the word was made (as balsamic vinegar)

The word "Balsam" is actually the Hebrew word בשם
Only that the L was added to the word because when they heard the Hebrew word בשם with the Rolled tongued S - they heard also an L.

So that is another way of proof about the original pronounciation of the שׂ.

[kwrandolph]

the letter ש had two sounds as two phonemes:
1. Shin
2. S with a rolled tongue.

and Hebrew actually kept these sounds while most semitic languages lost the "rolled tongue S".

***
If you compare the roots of Hebrew and Arabic for example, there is a paralllism between the
Hebrew ש=S to an Arabic SH
And Hebrew ש=SH to an Arabic S (Sometime also the TH if the TH is the original phoneme).

This thing cannot be happening if there was not an original two phonemes to the Hebrew ש.
Because if not - there was not an order to the parallelism and it was just random.

Yes, the parallelism could happen without the sin/shin being originally two phonemes.

After the Babylonian Exile, Jews did NOT speak Hebrew as their native tongue. The most common language they spoke natively was Aramaic. Aramaic and Hebrew share a common alphabet. As a result, within a few generations, when Jews read Tanakh in Hebrew, they read it with Aramaic pronunciations. Thus Aramaic pronunciations were imported to Hebrew, including a distinction between what is now the sin and the shin. This is not random, rather the result of importing pronunciations from cognate languages.

The evidence from before the Babylonian Exile is that ש was one letter, one phoneme, one pronunciation.

Karl W. Randolph.

[ducky]

Hi Karl,

I'll skip the first note that you said about how (and because of what) the Jews talked because it is not the main issue.

But notice that I didn't talked about Aramaic. I was talking about Arabic, which is more far language.

************************************
But even if we look at Aramaic, we should ask ourselves how come some words that were written in ש in Hebrew were sometimes pronounced in Aramaic as SH and sometimes as S.

Why did Aramaic pronounce (and write) the word עשר(=Ten) as עסר
but the word שלום(=peach) as שלם?

You say that the there was only one original pronounciation of the ש - and that is S.

What caused the Aramaic to start pronouncing only part of the ש's in some words as SH and to keep the other ש's as S in other words?

Because if there was a switch then the expectation would be of a full switch of the letter's sound.
Either SH in all of the words, or S in all of the words.

Why Aramaic, only in some root, create a new sound?

could it be that it was based on two different phonemes of the ש?

*******************************
And another thing, if the ש was just S - why does Hebrew and Aramaic had the letter ס (Samech).
Two letters for the same sound?
Unreasonable.
*****************************************

But my main argument is not bringing the Aramaic as a support for this claim.
But bringing the Arabic.
Arabic had no issue with Hebrew.

And if we see a parallelism between Arabic and Hebrew (and Aramaic), then you must see a very old difference.

if we take once again the word עשר(=Ten):
In Hebrew: eser
Armaic: asar
Arabic: ashr

If we take the word שלום(=Peace)
Hebrew: shalom
Aramaic: shlam
Arabic: salaam

How is it that Arabic also differ the two ש in the same roots that are differed in Hebrew?

Did the Arabs said to themselves: "let's create a mirror pronounciation with Aramaic and Hebrew?
Did the Hebrews and Aramaic said that?

And this mirror parallelism is the common parallelism that is seen, in almost of all the roots.
So when you see that the Arabic has a a S/SH pronounciation in paralle to the Hebrew SH/S - and Arabic and Hebrew didn't influence eachother at that time - then you must see the differences as a very old one.

Because how can you explain that?

[kwrandolph]

Hi Karl,

I'll skip the first note that you said about how (and because of what) the Jews talked because it is not the main issue.

But it’s directly related to the main issue as providing a mechanism for the change.

But notice that I didn't talked about Aramaic. I was talking about Arabic, which is more far language.

By your examples, Hebrew and Aramaic were parallel in their pronunciations, while Arabic the opposite pattern.

But even if we look at Aramaic, we should ask ourselves how come some words that were written in ש in Hebrew were sometimes pronounced in Aramaic as SH and sometimes as S.

Because Aramaic is a different language from Hebrew. The two languages were mutually incomprehensible in pre-Babylonian exile times.

Why did Aramaic pronounce (and write) the word עשר(=Ten) as עסר
but the word שלום(=peach) as שלם?

In the Aramaic portions of Daniel, ten is spelled עשר.

You say that the there was only one original pronounciation of the ש - and that is S.

I didn’t specify which pronunciation.

What caused the Aramaic to start pronouncing only part of the ש's in some words as SH and to keep the other ש's as S in other words?

Who knows? (Warning, speculation) Could it be that when Aramaic speaking people adopted the Hebrew alphabet, that Aramaic already had that difference in pronunciations?

Because if there was a switch then the expectation would be of a full switch of the letter's sound.
Either SH in all of the words, or S in all of the words.

Huh? You don’t make sense here.

Why Aramaic, only in some root, create a new sound?

We’re talking about a change in Hebrew, not Aramaic.

could it be that it was based on two different phonemes of the ש?

See above.

And another thing, if the ש was just S - why does Hebrew and Aramaic had the letter ס (Samech).
Two letters for the same sound?
Unreasonable.

Because in Biblical times, the Samech apparently had the same sound as the Greek Ξ which was different from the Greek Σ.

But my main argument is not bringing the Aramaic as a support for this claim.
But bringing the Arabic.
Arabic had no issue with Hebrew.

Arabic is in the family of cognate languages of Hebrew.

And if we see a parallelism between Arabic and Hebrew (and Aramaic), then you must see a very old difference.

How old?

if we take once again the word עשר(=Ten):…How is it that Arabic also differ the two ש in the same roots that are differed in Hebrew?

Cognate languages.

And this mirror parallelism is the common parallelism that is seen, in almost of all the roots.
So when you see that the Arabic has a a S/SH pronounciation in paralle to the Hebrew SH/S - and Arabic and Hebrew didn't influence eachother at that time - then you must see the differences as a very old one.

First of all, the evidence is that Aramaic, not Arabic, influenced post-Babylonian exile Hebrew pronunciation.

Secondly, Aramaic, not Hebrew, was spoken throughout the Middle East in ancient times. Hence there was influence where Aramaic and Arabic met. It was Aramaic which influenced the pronunciation of Hebrew.

Because how can you explain that?

Simple. Cognate languages.

Karl W. Randolph.

[kwrandolph]

He who has control of this board, is there a way to delete repeated messages?

[ducky]

Hi Karl,

Maybe I didn't manage to explain my main argument well, because I see by your answers that you base your argument on the Armaic-Hebrew realationship.
And actually this is the thing that we are suppose to avoid if we want to prove or disprove this claim.

Maybe I shoud'nt brought the Aramaic into my last comment.

******
So let me start again...

To prove my point about the ש had two original sounds (as two phonemes) we have to compare this letter with another Semitic language that DIDN'T have a relationship with Hebrew.

We actually need to avoid Aramaic.

Because when we use Arabic, we then "kick away" the whole "relationship"-issue and "excuse".

****
So now, the thing is this:

We all agree that Arabic and Hebrew share a lot of similar roots.

So it is easy to check this issue by comparing the roots.

We start in Arabic:
And we pick ten roots that Arabic writes with S while Hebrew writes them with letter ש.

And then we pick ten roots that Arabic writes with SH while Hebrew writes them with letter ש.

And then, amazinglly, the ten roots that Arabic writes them with S, are pronounced in Hebrew as ש=SH.
And the ten roots that Arabic writes them with SH, are pronounced in Hebrew as ש=S.

(I didn't write examples, but if you want, I'll write them).

This thing, by the way, doesn't come to prove anything about the sound of the ש - This is anothe issue.
But this thing proves about an old two original different sounds that the roots had.

Because if Arabic differs in their wiritngs and their pronunciation the same roots that are differed in pronunciation in Hebrew - Then it shows that these roots were really based on another sound.

If Arabic Salaam and Ashr are Hberew's שלום and עשר
We see by Arabic that these roots didn't use the same phonem (even if Hebrew writes them with the same letter).
And when we see it in almost all of the roots that Hebrew differs them by pronunciaition, and Arabic differes them too also in their writing - we must assume that it is not a couincidence.
And both Arabic and Hebrew saw these roots using another phoneme.

Unless you can bring another nice explanation for this "strange" couincidence

[kwrandolph]

So let me start again...

To prove my point about the ש had two original sounds (as two phonemes) we have to compare this letter with another Semitic language that DIDN'T have a relationship with Hebrew.

The evidence from before the Babylonian Exile is that ש was one letter with one pronunciation. After the Babylonian Exile doesn’t count because Jews in Judea did NOT speak Hebrew as their native tongue. What Hebrew they spoke, they spoke as a learned, second language importing the pronunciations of their native tongue into Hebrew. Their native tongue had a relationship with Arabic.

We actually need to avoid Aramaic.

No, we must include Aramaic because that’s the language that Jews in Judea spoke as their native tongue and from which they imported their pronunciations into Hebrew.

Because when we use Arabic, we then "kick away" the whole "relationship"-issue and "excuse".

No you don’t, for the reasons given above.

So now, the thing is this:

We all agree that Arabic and Hebrew share a lot of similar roots.

So it is easy to check this issue by comparing the roots.

We start in Arabic:
And we pick ten roots that Arabic writes with S while Hebrew writes them with letter ש.

And then we pick ten roots that Arabic writes with SH while Hebrew writes them with letter ש.

And then, amazinglly, the ten roots that Arabic writes them with S, are pronounced in Hebrew as ש=SH.
And the ten roots that Arabic writes them with SH, are pronounced in Hebrew as ש=S.

(I didn't write examples, but if you want, I'll write them).

This thing, by the way, doesn't come to prove anything about the sound of the ש - This is anothe issue.
But this thing proves about an old two original different sounds that the roots had.

Not for Hebrew it doesn’t. (You already gave some examples, you don’t need to add more.)

It could be evidence that when Aramaic adopted the Hebrew alphabet, that it had two similar sounding sibilants that they combined under ש which was then later imported into Hebrew by Aramaic speaking Jews.

Because if Arabic differs in their wiritngs and their pronunciation the same roots that are differed in pronunciation in Hebrew - Then it shows that these roots were really based on another sound.

Just because a certain structure exists in cognate languages, doesn’t follow that they exist in one of the cognates.

If Arabic Salaam and Ashr are Hberew's שלום and עשר
We see by Arabic that these roots didn't use the same phonem (even if Hebrew writes them with the same letter).

That doesn’t follow.

And when we see it in almost all of the roots that Hebrew differs them by pronunciaition, and Arabic differes them too also in their writing - we must assume that it is not a couincidence.
And both Arabic and Hebrew saw these roots using another phoneme.

Unless you can bring another nice explanation for this "strange" couincidence

Yes, I can. The explanation is based on history.

Before the Babylonian exile, Jews in Judea spoke Hebrew as their native tongue. After the Babylonian exile, Jews in Judea spoke Aramaic as their native tongue. Because Hebrew and Aramaic shared the same alphabet, Aramaic speaking Jews read Hebrew with Aramaic pronunciations. If Aramaic had two phonemes combined under ש, then Aramaic speaking Jews would read Hebrew ש as if it had two phonemes.

Post-Biblical Hebrew is not evidence for Biblical Hebrew. Post-Biblical Hebrew can be consulted as a cognate language, but iț’s not proof for Biblical Hebrew constructs. Your only evidence for ש having two phonemes in Hebrew is from post-Biblical Hebrew that had been influenced by Aramaic.

Karl W. Randolph.

[ducky]

Hi Karl,

Once again, we are missing my point here.

So even though I don't agree with some of the things you said, I'll pretend I do, and Let's start this coment as if I agree with everything you just said.

Let's assume that I agree with what you said:
1. The ש had only one sound
2. Aramaic created another sound for it.
3. Jews spoke Aramaic and therefore, copy the second sound.

So let's say I agree with that.

***
Now, a question.

There is another Semitic language that is called Arabic.
Arabic had nothing to do with Hebrew at the biblical time.

My question is How is it that 99% of the roots that Aramaic chose to pronounce its ש as SH - the Arabic writes them as S
And the ש that were pronounced as S - The Arabic writes them as SH
?

********************
If you say that Aramaic (and Hebrew) had only one sound for the ש...
And then... started to pronounce some of ש of some roots as SH...
Then How come that the Arabic chose the exact same roots to also create a different sound.
And the same roots that Aramaic chose to pronounce their ש in a different way - are the same roots in Arabic.

How can a thing like that be?

******************************
Did Arabic copy the Aramaic?
And if it did (which it didn't) - How is it that it creates the opposite sounds from Aramaic.

*****
What I want to say is - is that we see two different Semitic languages - without a close relationship between them -
And the two languages "chose" to differ (each one in their way) the Same roots.
This thing cannot be a couincident.
You must find the link that will provide the answear to that.

Can you give an explanation to this couincidence?