B-Hebrew: The Biblical Hebrew Forum

חרש

Can anyone care to join the dots for me, how we can get from the Qal meaning : "Engrave", "Inscribe"; "Fabricate"; "Plough" - to the Hiphil : "being silent", that is a "voluntary silence". I am sure there are a few verbs like this?? But this is the first time I have come across a very radical alteration in meaning that is simply hard to connect by simply changing the verbal category, (The Binyamin).
Chris watts

Hi Chris,

These are not the same roots.

In Hebrew, one letter can represent more than one Semitic consonants.

In this case of root חרש, there are two letters that each one represents two Semitic consonants:
1. Letter ח:
a. Produced from the throat. (like Arabic: ح)
b. Produced from the velar/uvular (Like soft K=כ) (Arabic: خ).

2. Letter שׁ:
a. SH.
b. TH (Like in Thing).

חרש with the meaning of plowing is:
H (from the throat)
R
TH

חרש as silent/deaf is:
H (from velar/uvular)
R
SH

And so, these are different root that Hebrew writes them the same.


****
Another thing: It has nothing to do with the Stems.
Each (different) root can come in Qal, and also Hiphil (or whatever).

ducky wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2024 12:19 pm Hi Chris,

These are not the same roots.

True.

ducky wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2024 12:19 pm In Hebrew, one letter can represent more than one Semitic consonants.

Not evident from within Hebrew. All languages have homonyms, and Biblical Hebrew is blessed with homographs as well.

ducky wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2024 12:19 pm 2. Letter שׁ:
a. SH.
b. TH (Like in Thing).

Actually the Sin and Shin were originally one letter. Evidence includes that there are words sometimes written with a Sin and sometimes with a Shin, and cases where roots and derivatives and written with variations of Sin and Shin.

ducky wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2024 12:19 pm ****
Another thing: It has nothing to do with the Stems.
Each (different) root can come in Qal, and also Hiphil (or whatever).

True.

Karl W. Randolph.

kwrandolph wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2024 12:30 am

ducky wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2024 12:19 pm In Hebrew, one letter can represent more than one Semitic consonants.

Not evident from within Hebrew. All languages have homonyms, and Biblical Hebrew is blessed with homographs as well.

Didn't quite understand the meaning of: "Not evident from within Hebrew".
If we're talking about Semitic consonants, so of course, we learn that through the comparison with other Semitic languages.

If it has homographs, it is because of this fact that one letter can represent more than one Semitic consonants.
(And I think I can argue about "homonyms" part - but never mind about that).

kwrandolph wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2024 12:30 am

ducky wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2024 12:19 pm 2. Letter שׁ:
a. SH.
b. TH (Like in Thing).

Actually the Sin and Shin were originally one letter. Evidence includes that there are words sometimes written with a Sin and sometimes with a Shin, and cases where roots and derivatives and written with variations of Sin and Shin.

Notice that we are not talking about Shin and Sin.
But we're talking about the sounds of SH and the sound of TH - that are both represented by the same letter ש.
(Like in the example of חרש-חרש)

**************************************

The Shin and Sin

The Shin and the Sin were indeed written in Hebrew with one letter.
I was talking about consonants/phonemes (not letters).

Can you give examples for the rest of what you said?

***
Hebrew letter ש, that its sound is SH, represented, as we said, the Semitic phoneme of SH and also the Semitic phoneme of TH (thing).
Besides that, the letter ש had another sound, which was closer to the sound of S (it was with a rolled tongue), and later on, it evolved to an S.

Even though the two sounds, SH and S, were represented by one letter (ש), they were kept by the speakers.

The reason that scholars see this "Shin-Sin" an original thing is because of the correlation that it has with some other languages.

Just for example: each time there is a Hebrew ש=S, Arabic would write that as SH.
And each time there is a Hebrew ש=SH, Arabic would have an S or TH (as we said that the Hebrew ש represented two semitic sounds).

This fact that there is a correlation between Hebrew and Arabic, shows that it's not some sort of a made-up thing, or a coincidence.
Hebrew writes the two different sounds with one letter,
and Arabic, without caring what's going on in Hebrew, separates these two sounds to two different letters - exactly according to the separation the Hebrew speakers made with their mouth (but not in their writings).

AlHaTorah's website agrees, they are not the same roots. Unfortunately I used Gesenius_Tragelles Concordance and it gave this word as the same root, but placed the meaning of Silent in the Hiphil category. My fault.

Thank you
Chris watts

I now see it too.
on the one hand, it writes the different etymology for each one.
On the other hand, it writes them together.
And I guess that it connected them because of doubtful explanation about a "deaf" that is a "cut-off-of-speech" (or something like that).

ducky wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2024 3:17 am

kwrandolph wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2024 12:30 am

ducky wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2024 12:19 pm In Hebrew, one letter can represent more than one Semitic consonants.

Not evident from within Hebrew. All languages have homonyms, and Biblical Hebrew is blessed with homographs as well.

Didn't quite understand the meaning of: "Not evident from within Hebrew".
If we're talking about Semitic consonants, so of course, we learn that through the comparison with other Semitic languages.

That’s the problem. Just because other Semitic languages had certain patterns, does not mean that Hebrew ever had those patterns.

ducky wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2024 3:17 am If it has homographs, it is because of this fact that one letter can represent more than one Semitic consonants.

No evidence that that was true prior to the Babylonian exile. Even questionable for Biblical Hebrew after the Babylonian exile.

ducky wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2024 3:17 am (And I think I can argue about "homonyms" part - but never mind about that).

kwrandolph wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2024 12:30 am

ducky wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2024 12:19 pm 2. Letter שׁ:
a. SH.
b. TH (Like in Thing).

Actually the Sin and Shin were originally one letter. Evidence includes that there are words sometimes written with a Sin and sometimes with a Shin, and cases where roots and derivatives and written with variations of Sin and Shin.

Notice that we are not talking about Shin and Sin.
But we're talking about the sounds of SH and the sound of TH - that are both represented by the same letter ש.
(Like in the example of חרש-חרש)

Not true. If you want to talk about the sounds, the way the letters were adopted into other languages indicates that the ט originally had the theta “th” sound, the ס originally the “X” sound and the ש had only one sound, the “S”. Just because other Semitic languages had a lisp doesn’t mean that Biblical Hebrew had such.

ducky wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2024 3:17 am The Shin and Sin

The Shin and the Sin were indeed written in Hebrew with one letter.
I was talking about consonants/phonemes (not letters).

Can you give examples for the rest of what you said?

I would have to spend some time to come up with examples, though one off the top of my head is שים to place, which has the derivative שם that place, one written with a sin, the other a shin.

ducky wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2024 3:17 am Hebrew letter ש, that its sound is SH, represented, as we said, the Semitic phoneme of SH and also the Semitic phoneme of TH (thing).
Besides that, the letter ש had another sound, which was closer to the sound of S (it was with a rolled tongue), and later on, it evolved to an S.

Even though the two sounds, SH and S, were represented by one letter (ש), they were kept by the speakers.

The reason that scholars see this "Shin-Sin" an original thing is because of the correlation that it has with some other languages.

Again no evidence from within Biblical Hebrew. Rather that is evidence that with the death of the last native speaker of Biblical Hebrew about 500 BC, that those sounds were imported into Hebrew from the languages that Jews spoke, e.g. from Aramaic, Arabic, etc.

ducky wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2024 3:17 am Just for example: each time there is a Hebrew ש=S, Arabic would write that as SH.
And each time there is a Hebrew ש=SH, Arabic would have an S or TH (as we said that the Hebrew ש represented two semitic sounds).

This fact that there is a correlation between Hebrew and Arabic, shows that it's not some sort of a made-up thing, or a coincidence.
Hebrew writes the two different sounds with one letter,
and Arabic, without caring what's going on in Hebrew, separates these two sounds to two different letters - exactly according to the separation the Hebrew speakers made with their mouth (but not in their writings).

Here we deal with two issues:

1) historical development within a language

2) comparison with other cognate languages

When one combines these two issues, new sounds can enter a language through cognate languages, especially if the cognate languages are the native languages spoken by those who use the target language as a second language. Such is the case for Hebrew after about 500 BC—it was used as the language of religion, of government, of high literature, but no one spoke it natively.

Karl W. Randolph.

Hi,
Sorry about the long post

I think that there is a very big misunderstanding.
I don't know if you don't understand me, or if I just didn't explain it well.

1. I am not speaking about the "practical speaking-sound".
2. I am not speaking specifically about Hebrew.

Let's imagine that the Hebrew people was a people of mutes.
No one can speak.
Not one Hebrew word was ever spoken through all of history.
All of the communication of Hebrew was by text alone.
Let's just imagine.

It would still be that the Hebrew letter Right-SHin=שׁ (that was never spoken) represents/reflects two Semitic phonemes.
It is about the general Semitic phonemes.

Each language (so-called) "chose" to "dress" each phoneme with a letter. And sometimes, because of never-mind reasons, one letter was "dressed" on two phonemes.

So just like the example of חרש-חרש.
Hebrew "chose" to dress two phonemes with letter ח
And also "chose" to dress two phonemes with letter שׁ
And so, the Hebrew root חרש(1) is the same Hebrew root חרש(2).
But it is not the same Semitic root.
These are two Semitic roots.

How do we know that it is not just a random thing?
Because when observing at the other Semitic languages, that used more letters in their alphabet, they differ the same Hebrew root to two different roots in their language by using other letters.
But still, how can we know that it is not a coincidence?
Because when observing at a range of Hebrew roots that has (let's say) the Right-SHin letter=שׁ, there is a "consent" of all of the languages about all of the roots.
That when one language sees Right-SHin as "A", then all of the other languages also see that as A.
And when it sees the Right-SHin as "B", then all of the other languages also see that as B.
It cannot be a coincidence.

So just an example by using only three languages (and there are more, of course).

------------Hebrew-----Arabic-----Aramaic
שלום-------SH-L-M------S-L-M------SH-L-M
לשון--------L-SH-N------L-S-N-------L-SH-N
לבש--------L-B-SH------L-B-S-------L-B-SH

------------Hebrew-----Arabic-----Aramaic
שמונה-----SH-M-N----- TH-M-N-----T-M-N
משל-------M-SH-L----- M-TH-L------M-T-L
שלוש------SH-L-SH----TH-L-TH----T-L-T

So, there is a magical agreement between Arabic and Aramaic (and other) that the "ש" in שלום/לשון/לבש is one kind of "ש".
And there is a magical agreement between Arabic and Aramaic (and other) that the "ש" in שמונה/משל/שלוש is another kind of "ש".
(and imagine more languages).

If it was just a random thing or a coincidence, then we would see a "mess".
One language writes it like this, and one language writes it like that, and just a big random mess.
But since we see that there is an agreement between languages about the same roots, then the only way to see it is the common way.
that some letters represented more than one phoneme.

This subject is not specifically about Hebrew - it is about basic linguistic.
But I do suggest that you read it from a Hebrew-study book, so it probably shows more examples (and with other letters).

Another simple example is Sodom and Gomorrah.
Gomorrah in Hebrew is עמורה.
How does the letter Ayin-ע is translated into a G.
It's hard to understand it, unless we know that the letter Ayin=ע represents also the phoneme of GH (which western languages wrote it as a G).
So, the letter Ayin is Hebrew represented two phonemes: 1. Ayin (throat), and 2. GH

***********************************************************************************************

kwrandolph wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2024 1:58 am the way the letters were adopted into other languages indicates that the ט originally had the theta “th” sound...

First of all, you allow yourself to do what you don't allow me to do (and which I didn't).
And that is to learn about Hebrew from "other languages", and therefore, I'm surprise.

And when you say that "Other languages indicates that the ט originally had the theta “th” sound"...
You talking about post-exile indications, right?
If so, then it is another thing that you allow yourself to do while coming against it again and again.

But I'll just go with you on that...
According to the Hexapla by Origen (Origenis Hexaplorum), not only that I don't see support for your words, But I see a contradiction.
Because in its Greek transliteration of the Hebrew, he needed to use a Greek letter for the ת, and for the ט.
And in a way that is exactly the opposite of what you say, he chose to use Theta for the ת (and not for the ט).
And the T for the ט.
But according to you the ט was like the Theta, and if so, why wouldn't he transliteration the letter exactly as it is (or at least close).

As for the sound of the ט...
I don't know why you are (always) against the mainstream (always, always, always).
The ט was Emphatic, as we can still hear it (commonly) by other living speakers of Semitic languages.

And if you want to see it from inside the Hebrew, then ask yourself about these forms:
נצטדק (Gen. 44:16)
ויצטירו (Josh. 9:4)
הצטידנו (Josh. 9:12)
These are from stem Hitpael.
You can see that there is no letter ת here - but it turned into a ט (plus a change in place)
The reason of the ת turning into ט is because of the letter צ which is also emphatic.
And that letter ת=t sound was "influenced" by the emphatic letter צ - and became an emphatic itself (meaning: to letter ט)

kwrandolph wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2024 1:58 am I would have to spend some time to come up with examples, though one off the top of my head is שים to place, which has the derivative שם that place, one written with a sin, the other a shin.

This is simply a common etymology.
These are different roots.
And even if you may say that these different roots have the same "father" (which I won't vouch for that, to say the least), these would still be a different root.

and just for the exercise, we can look at the correlation between other languages and how they write these words.
So as for שם (as put, place): Aramaic: שׂ/ס --- Arabic: SH
שם (as there):::::::::::::::::: Aramaic: ת ------ Arabic: TH

So, while both of these languages have the same two words, they do differ them by different letters, while keeping the known letters-match between the languages. (Left-SHin matches to Arabic SH and to Aramaic ס, while Arabic TH matches to Hebrew Right-SHin and to Aramaic T=ת).

****

ducky wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2024 1:13 pm 2. I am not speaking specifically about Hebrew.

I am speaking specifically about Hebrew. In particular Biblical Hebrew.

ducky wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2024 1:13 pm Let's just imagine.

It would still be that the Hebrew letter Right-SHin=שׁ (that was never spoken) represents/reflects two Semitic phonemes.

If we speak specifically about Biblical Hebrew, there’s no evidence for that. Cognate languages can have all sorts of differences from Biblical Hebrew.

ducky wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2024 1:13 pm So just like the example of חרש-חרש.
Hebrew "chose" to dress two phonemes with letter ח
And also "chose" to dress two phonemes with letter שׁ
And so, the Hebrew root חרש(1) is the same Hebrew root חרש(2).
But it is not the same Semitic root.
These are two Semitic roots.

The English word “to” has at least two, if not three, roots. German today has two of those roots as “zu” but the third root as “nach”. Norwegian has the first two roots as “å” and “til”, but the third root sometimes omitted, sometimes “til”. But in English, there is no difference in either spellings nor pronunciation—those are three homonyms. The different roots are irrelevant as far as spelling and pronunciation.

In Biblical Hebrew we can’t be sure of the pronunciation (vowels), but we have at least homographs that give clues to the consonants.

ducky wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2024 1:13 pm It cannot be a coincidence.

But it can be imported from another, natively spoken cognate language into Hebrew spoken as a second language.

ducky wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2024 1:13 pm So just an example by using only three languages (and there are more, of course).

------------Hebrew-----Arabic-----Aramaic
שלום-------SH-L-M------S-L-M------SH-L-M

You don’t know about the SH pronunciation in Biblical Hebrew. When did non-native speakers of Hebrew first indicate that pronunciation? Was it not the Masoretes?

ducky wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2024 1:13 pm לשון--------L-SH-N------L-S-N-------L-SH-N
לבש--------L-B-SH------L-B-S-------L-B-SH

------------Hebrew-----Arabic-----Aramaic
שמונה-----SH-M-N----- TH-M-N-----T-M-N
משל-------M-SH-L----- M-TH-L------M-T-L
שלוש------SH-L-SH----TH-L-TH----T-L-T

By the time of the Masoretes, some Jews spoke Arabic natively, some Aramaic. How much did their native tongues influence how they pronounced Hebrew?

ducky wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2024 1:13 pm But since we see that there is an agreement between languages about the same roots, then the only way to see it is the common way.
that some letters represented more than one phoneme.

You don’t have letters in those cognate languages indicating more than one phoneme, so why do you insist that the Hebrew letters had more than one pronunciation, one phoneme?

ducky wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2024 1:13 pm This subject is not specifically about Hebrew - it is about basic linguistic.

Sorry, but my subject is specifically about Hebrew.

ducky wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2024 1:13 pm But I do suggest that you read it from a Hebrew-study book, so it probably shows more examples (and with other letters).

My Hebrew study book is Tanakh. I have done a lot of original research using that study book.

ducky wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2024 1:13 pm Another simple example is Sodom and Gomorrah.
Gomorrah in Hebrew is עמורה.
How does the letter Ayin-ע is translated into a G.
It's hard to understand it, unless we know that the letter Ayin=ע represents also the phoneme of GH (which western languages wrote it as a G).
So, the letter Ayin is Hebrew represented two phonemes: 1. Ayin (throat), and 2. GH

Nope. What that indicates is that in Biblical Hebrew, the Ayin most likely was a full glottal stop, which some non-native speakers heard as a “g”, others as a hard vowel. It has no bearing on the theory that Ayin represented two root letters.

ducky wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2024 1:13 pm

kwrandolph wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2024 1:58 am the way the letters were adopted into other languages indicates that the ט originally had the theta “th” sound...

First of all, you allow yourself to do what you don't allow me to do (and which I didn't).
And that is to learn about Hebrew from "other languages", and therefore, I'm surprise.

Then what do you call insisting on different roots for the Shin and Ayin. if not learning from “other languages”?

ducky wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2024 1:13 pm And when you say that "Other languages indicates that the ט originally had the theta “th” sound"...
You talking about post-exile indications, right?

Nope, Actually for when those languages adopted the Hebrew alphabet, starting around 1000 BC.

ducky wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2024 1:13 pm If so, then it is another thing that you allow yourself to do while coming against it again and again.

I mentioned it only as a contrast to your claims. Anyways, how is how other languages adopted the Hebrew alphabet not evidence to how the Hebrew language was pronounced at that time?

ducky wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2024 1:13 pm But I'll just go with you on that...
According to the Hexapla by Origen (Origenis Hexaplorum), not only that I don't see support for your words, But I see a contradiction.
Because in its Greek transliteration of the Hebrew, he needed to use a Greek letter for the ת, and for the ט.
And in a way that is exactly the opposite of what you say, he chose to use Theta for the ת (and not for the ט).
And the T for the ט.
But according to you the ט was like the Theta, and if so, why wouldn't he transliteration the letter exactly as it is (or at least close).

Because Origin’s Hexapla was not about Biblical Hebrew. It is about the Hebrew spoken some 700+ years after the last native speaker of Biblical Hebrew had died. Under the influences of time and the influences of the native languages spoken by those who studied Hebrew, they changed the pronunciations of some of the letters.

ducky wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2024 1:13 pm As for the sound of the ט...
I don't know why you are (always) against the mainstream (always, always, always).

Why should I follow the mainstream, when the evidence from within Hebrew isn’t there? When the mainstream takes its clues from other languages, why should I follow it?

ducky wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2024 1:13 pm The ט was Emphatic, as we can still hear it (commonly) by other living speakers of Semitic languages.

Again, are you not using other languages to inform you on Hebrew? Was it always an emphatic, or do we have pronunciations only from present speech?

ducky wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2024 1:13 pm And if you want to see it from inside the Hebrew, then ask yourself about these forms:
נצטדק (Gen. 44:16)
ויצטירו (Josh. 9:4)
הצטידנו (Josh. 9:12)
These are from stem Hitpael.
You can see that there is no letter ת here - but it turned into a ט (plus a change in place)
The reason of the ת turning into ט is because of the letter צ which is also emphatic.
And that letter ת=t sound was "influenced" by the emphatic letter צ - and became an emphatic itself (meaning: to letter ט)

And not softened? Do you not speculate?

ducky wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2024 1:13 pm

kwrandolph wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2024 1:58 am I would have to spend some time to come up with examples, though one off the top of my head is שים to place, which has the derivative שם that place, one written with a sin, the other a shin.

This is simply a common etymology.
These are different roots.
And even if you may say that these different roots have the same "father" (which I won't vouch for that, to say the least), these would still be a different root.

Both the form and meaning indicate that these are from the same root. There’s no indication from within Tanakh of different roots.

ducky wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2024 1:13 pm and just for the exercise, we can look at the correlation between other languages and how they write these words.
So as for שם (as put, place): Aramaic: שׂ/ס --- Arabic: SH
שם (as there):::::::::::::::::: Aramaic: ת ------ Arabic: TH

How is this not using different languages to inform you on Hebrew? If you didn’t have these other languages, would you ever speculate that these are from different roots? Since the Aramaic and Arabic have different phonemes, why don’t you speculate that the words in Aramaic and Arabic are from different roots?

Karl W. Randolph.

Hi,

Once again sorry for the long post.
I try to not comment about everything, so that we slowly narrow the subjects.

*****

Karl, for some reason, it seems that I can't lead it to the main subject.
I hope I'll succeed this time.

*****

Let's focus.
Look again at the beginning of the thread.
It started with a question about חרש and חרש.
Two roots that have different meanings.

In other words, the question asks How come there are two words with the same set of signs and in the same order, but still don't have the same meaning?

It is not a specific Hebrew question.
It is like asking How come I see:
1+2+3=X
and also
1+2+3=Y

Indeed, the case that was brought in the opening post was a Hebrew case.
But the answer is a general answer, because underneath that specific Hebrew question lies a general one.

The signs don't matter.
They can be 1,2,3
And they can be Triangle, Square, and Circle.
And they can be $, @, #.
It doesn't matter.
And therefore, I said in my previous post, let's assume that the people were mute.
Because the sound doesn't matter.

The question was about the two roots חרש.
It doesn't matter how was the letter ח was pronounce, or how the letter ר was pronounced, or how the letter ש was pronounced.
It. Doesn't. Matter.

The answer for that question is based on the understanding the phoneme.

Now I will use again one example from before to show the way of thinking, without giving letter ש any type of way of pronunciation.
I will replace the letter ש with numbers: 1-2-3-4-5
Let's start without talking about Hebrew at all.

We are looking on two words:
1. Tongue.
2. Three.

And we look at Arabic:
Tongue: L-1-N
Three: 2-L-2

So we see that in Arabic, the root "tongue" has a different sign than root "Three".
No problem. It is like I see two words in English: CAT and DOG. Two words different signs.
No trouble.

Now Aramaic:
Tongue: L-3-N
Three: 4-L-4

Also here Aramaic writes the two words with different signs.
And the signs are also different than Arabic (but we don't care about it now).

What is important to notice is that both Arabic and Aramaic see "Tongue" and "Three" as not having similar signs.
Completely different roots, with different signs.

Now we are looking at Hebrew:
Tongue: L-5-N
Three: 5-L-5

Now this is strange.
How come Aramaic and Arabic and other languages in the Semitic family differ these roots completely,
But Hebrew write the sign the same?

Well, it seems, after examining many words and finding the pattern, that the Arabic 1 and the Aramaic 3 have the same essence (same phoneme).
And the Arabic 2, and the Aramaic 4 has the same essence (same phoneme).
And what about Hebrew 5?
The Hebrew 5 of tongue is the same phoneme as 1&3,
And the Hebrew 5 of Three is the same phoneme of 2&4.

And so, Hebrew used the sign 5 to express (or to be the home for) two phonemes.
(actually three, but never mind).

And there is a pattern of matches between the semitic languages.

So therefore, I say again. It has nothing to do with the sound.
חרש and חרש are two different roots that Hebrew writes them the same.

***********
This thing doesn't happen only in Hebrew.
Also Arabic it, and also Aramaic has it.
Each language and its own letters.

*************************************
When there is a change in the word (sound, stress, vowel) that doesn't change the meaning (meaning: with no essence), then that is not a phoneme.
*************************************

kwrandolph wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2024 2:45 am But it can be imported from another, natively spoken cognate language into Hebrew spoken as a second language.

Since this case happens in other languages, then it couldn't be imported without breaking the pattern and it will get "messy".
And indeed, there are cases that happened when one language imported a word while creating a backward false correction.
(meaning that the language that imported a root with a specific letter "converted" it to fit itself, without noticing that the letter wasn't in a need for a "conversion".)

kwrandolph wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2024 2:45 am

ducky wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2024 1:13 pm Another simple example is Sodom and Gomorrah.
Gomorrah in Hebrew is עמורה.
How does the letter Ayin-ע is translated into a G.
It's hard to understand it, unless we know that the letter Ayin=ע represents also the phoneme of GH (which western languages wrote it as a G).
So, the letter Ayin is Hebrew represented two phonemes: 1. Ayin (throat), and 2. GH

Nope. What that indicates is that in Biblical Hebrew, the Ayin most likely was a full glottal stop, which some non-native speakers heard as a “g”, others as a hard vowel. It has no bearing on the theory that Ayin represented two root letters.

But if so, then all of Hebrew letter Ayin would have been translated like that (with a G).
So how come Ammon=עמון is not written as G?
Do they just flip a coin?

kwrandolph wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2024 2:45 am

ducky wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2024 1:13 pm And if you want to see it from inside the Hebrew, then ask yourself about these forms:
נצטדק (Gen. 44:16)
ויצטירו (Josh. 9:4)
הצטידנו (Josh. 9:12)
These are from stem Hitpael.
You can see that there is no letter ת here - but it turned into a ט (plus a change in place)
The reason of the ת turning into ט is because of the letter צ which is also emphatic.
And that letter ת=t sound was "influenced" by the emphatic letter צ - and became an emphatic itself (meaning: to letter ט)

And not softened? Do you not speculate?

Then if so, how come it doesn't happen with:
ישתרגו (Lame. 1:14)
משתכר (Hag. 1:6)
Aren't they soft enough for you?
How come the ת doesn't turn to "soft" ט?

**********************************************************************