Question on the name Samuel from 1 Sam 1:20

[Isaac Fried]

Ducky writes

So Here you claim that Aramaic had two sounds for the ש In the biblical times, and that the Hebrews, which had only one sound for the ש, adopted in the late biblical times the same two sounds for the ש as well.

The situation is crystal clear, not a shred of mess and doubt at all. Hebrew has only one shin, one xet, one Zayin, and one Ayin. No multiple "phonemes" for one letter. The shifts in Arabic means that letters shift in this language as well as in Hebrew.
Hebrew has עבה, גבה, צבה
Hebrew has זבח, טבח
Hebrew has זרק, טרק, ירק, סרק, שרק
Hebrew has אזן, אדן
Hebrew has דב, זאב, צב, צבי, שפן, שפיפון
Hebrew has חשר, גשר, קשר
And so on and so on.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

[Jason Hare]

Hi Jason,

you're right.
But this forum is dry anyway.

I'd like to think that it doesn't have to be dry. I think it's dry because hated this kind of discussion and just walked away - in droves.

[kwrandolph]

Hi Karl,

If I understand you correctly, you claim that ש pronounced in biblical hebrew as always "sh"?

No, I merely said that the pronunciation of ש is as a sibilant. Both “s” and “sh” are sibilants. Only one of those sibilants was used.

What about words like סבך-שבך and סער-שער that indicate another pronunciation?

In the first example, שבר is Hebrew, סבר is Aramaic. Two different languages. Two different pronunciations.
In the second example the words are similar, but have distinct, different meanings and uses: סער has the basic meaning of being windy such that it blows away, whereas שער refers to the fury of storms and metaphorically to the storming of anger. It’s possible that one of the words was originally a loan word from another language, but today we have no evidence.

Karl W. Randolph.

[kwrandolph]

Hi Karl,

Without insulting, or something like that, Almost every sentence you wrote is wrong.

And it is also very clear to me that you're using terms that you don't even know what they mean (like Tiberian Hebrew, or sound/phoneme)……
I am interested to know what is your theory about the letter ש and its sounds.

With this response, you have just told me I’m wasting my time answering you. I think you are deliberately trying to confuse the issue.

You have yet to provide one shred of evidence to back up your claims. Do you think that merely repeating your claims without evidence will convince?

And I have already answered what I think the evidence that I know indicates concerning the pronunciation and uses of ש. I don’t think I need to repeat myself once again.

Your personal attacks while still failing to provide any evidence to back up your claims tells me you have nothing.

So, good-bye. Karl W. Randolph.

[Jonathan Beck]

Hi Karl,

Without insulting, or something like that, Almost every sentence you wrote is wrong.

And it is also very clear to me that you're using terms that you don't even know what they mean (like Tiberian Hebrew, or sound/phoneme)……
I am interested to know what is your theory about the letter ש and its sounds.

You have yet to provide one shred of evidence to back up your claims. Do you think that merely repeating your claims without evidence will convince?

And I have already answered what I think the evidence that I know indicates concerning the pronunciation and uses of ש. I don’t think I need to repeat myself once again.

Your personal attacks while still failing to provide any evidence to back up your claims tells me you have nothing.

So, good-bye. Karl W. Randolph.

Karl,

With all due respect, in my estimations the examples you have provided over the last months have been wrong. If you are in the minority (which you most certainly are), the burden of proof is not on others to back up their opinion - it's on you.

Moreover, while we're on the subject of personal attacks, you certainly can't claim that you yourself are without fault, can you?

Respectfully,

Jonathan

[kwrandolph]

Karl,

With all due respect, in my estimations the examples you have provided over the last months have been wrong.

For purposes of discussion, which examples do you think are wrong? And why? It’s sort of hard to have a discussion based only on generalities without specifics.

If you are in the minority (which you most certainly are), the burden of proof is not on others to back up their opinion - it's on you.

Actually the burden of proof is on both. One cannot say that an argument is wrong without being able to say why. The argumentum ad populum doesn’t hold water.

Respectfully,

Jonathan

In this discussion, there are certain claims being made. I know of no evidence to back up those claims, none whatsoever. When I asked for evidence, in this case from Biblical times, none has been proffered. My conclusion is that there is no evidence. So far, my main points have been to question the claim of ancient provenance when I have been given absolutely no evidence that that claim is true.

Yours,
Karl W. Randolph.

[ducky]

Hi Isaac,

Ducky writes

So Here you claim that Aramaic had two sounds for the ש In the biblical times, and that the Hebrews, which had only one sound for the ש, adopted in the late biblical times the same two sounds for the ש as well.

The situation is crystal clear, not a shred of mess and doubt at all. Hebrew has only one shin, one xet, one Zayin, and one Ayin. No multiple "phonemes" for one letter. The shifts in Arabic means that letters shift in this language as well as in Hebrew.
Hebrew has עבה, גבה, צבה
Hebrew has זבח, טבח
Hebrew has זרק, טרק, ירק, סרק, שרק
Hebrew has אזן, אדן
Hebrew has דב, זאב, צב, צבי, שפן, שפיפון
Hebrew has חשר, גשר, קשר
And so on and so on.

Isaac,
But if you claim that the shift in Arabic (as splitting a letter into two sound) was a personal Arabic thing... it is okay.
But now you need to keep going and see that the same split occurs in Ugarit, Akkadian, Ge'ez, and more languages, each one in its own split (also Aramaic).

So how did these languages knew to split the exact letter in the exact roots?
was it a couincident?
did they have a secret meeting and left the Jews out of it?
And why does Aramaic write D for only some of the Hebrew's Z - which this specific Z is always written as TH in Arabic.
but it writes Z for the other Hebrew's Z tha tare written in Arabic as Z as well?

If it was just a matter of "accent"
then we wouldn't see a match.
We would see a mess.
As one time the Hebrew's Z that fits the Arabic Th is writeen as Z in Aramaic.
And one time the Hebrew's Z that fits the Arabic Th is writeen as D in Aramaic.
And one time the Hebrew's Z that fits the Arabic Z is writeen as Z in Aramaic.
And one time the Hebrew's Z that fits the Arabic Z is writeen as D in Aramaic.
And so on... (as Hebre's D)

The fact that there is a match shows you that the there are two Z's in Hebrew
And Aramaic have two D's (probably only as phoneme)
which Hebrew colloided the TH phoneme and coliided it with Z sound
And Aramaic collided it with D sound

The fact that there is a match and a patterened relationship is not something to be ignore and say about it that it was just a couincident.

***
the principle you follow is also right, but it is in another state of languages.
I believe in that same principle like you.

But it doesn't contradict the other subject.
These are two different subjects

[ducky]

Hi Karl,

Without insulting, or something like that, Almost every sentence you wrote is wrong.

And it is also very clear to me that you're using terms that you don't even know what they mean (like Tiberian Hebrew, or sound/phoneme)……
I am interested to know what is your theory about the letter ש and its sounds.

With this response, you have just told me I’m wasting my time answering you. I think you are deliberately trying to confuse the issue.

You have yet to provide one shred of evidence to back up your claims. Do you think that merely repeating your claims without evidence will convince?

And I have already answered what I think the evidence that I know indicates concerning the pronunciation and uses of ש. I don’t think I need to repeat myself once again.

Your personal attacks while still failing to provide any evidence to back up your claims tells me you have nothing.

So, good-bye. Karl W. Randolph.

Hi Karl,
I didn't mean to insult you at all.
And it could be that we're both wasting our time.

And you said that I'm deliberately trying to confuse the issue?
How?

I just show you how it is You, in your exact same comment, contradicted yourself. You mixed eras, and you write a claim and then suddenly question it.
So it seems that you don't even know where you're going with this.
You just drops claims on the spot.
And how can I reply to such a comment?

And I did repeat my question again and again becaue you didn't give a clear answer (but contradicting one).
and every time that I ask you again you say:
In the bla-bla BC the Jews were like this an like that, then Moses came, and then Moses went, and then the Tiberian and then the Muslims...

I don't even understand what is so hard just to write a simple answer to the question.
I even took a step back and ask you to write your theory in a simple way - from A to Z - just to see the line you set.

But anyway, I guess we won't agree.

[Refael Shalev]

Hi Karl

The meanings of סער and שער are identical in some verses and I'm sure you don't classify every metaphor as a complete different root in other cases.

Watch that I meant סב"כ-שב"כ (thicket). You can also see the similarity in the words מסוכה-משוכה here the roots differ as סו"כ-שכ"כ but retain their meaning.

[kwrandolph]

Refael:

Hi Karl

The meanings of סער and שער are identical in some verses and I'm sure you don't classify every metaphor as a complete different root in other cases.

In lexicography one needs to look at all uses, not just some, especially in a case like Biblical Hebrew where many words are used only a few times. When looking at all uses of סער and its derivatives, we see that it refers to being windy such that it blows and blows away. It’s used in contexts where one doesn’t have rain. שער is used in contexts of rain, lightning and thunder, storming. The uses we find in Tanakh are distinct.

We don’t have a history of development of those two terms. All we have is how those terms are used in the text that we presently read. The text that we presently have uses the two terms distinctly differently.

Watch that I meant סב"כ-שב"כ (thicket). You can also see the similarity in the words מסוכה-משוכה here the roots differ as סו"כ-שכ"כ but retain their meaning.

Again the words are used in ways and contexts where the differences in meaning are distinct. There’s no root connected with שבכה and its uses are connected to a man-made lattice. סבך refers to a wild thicket of plants. מסוכה is used only once in the sense of a covering, from the root meaning to overspread, hence to cover. משוכת is used only once from a root meaning to screen, screening that can be done by a hedge or wall. In this case it refers to a hedge.

We don’t have enough information to trace the development of the language. All we have is a time capsule dating from Moses in the 15th century BC to the fifth century BC, where the final century was written by people who were not native speakers of Hebrew. When I ask for evidence, I look for evidence from within the Hebrew language itself or in transliterations from within these dates. So far those who disagree with me have provided nothing, nada, zilch, that fits these criteria.

Yours, Karl W. Randolph.