XPost: soc.culture.greek, soc.history.ancient, alt.pagan   
   XPost: alt.magick   
   From: ybg@TheWorld.com   
      
   In soc.history.ancient Yusuf B Gursey  wrote in   
   :   
   : In soc.history.ancient SolomonW  wrote in <   
   1zdl9w50wfn.1cpktivhk7qwi$.dlg@40tude.net>:   
   : : On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 09:30:40 -0700 (PDT), Yusuf B Gursey wrote:   
      
   : :> On Jul 2, 12:21 pm, Yusuf B Gursey  wrote:   
   : :>> On Jul 2, 8:44 am, SolomonW  wrote:   
   : :>>   
   : :>>   
      
   : :>>> I confess that clearly you know more than I do about this but let me   
   make   
   : :>>> one observation. There was a study done in England, tracing many famous   
   : :>>> rabbis' travels. At the time (Greek and earlier Roman times) there were   
   two   
   : :>>> main centers of Jewish studies; one center was in Iraq and the  other   
   in   
   : :>>   
   : :>> Arabic got it from Aramaic or directly from Jews, who neighbor   
   : :>> Palestine (there was no "Israel" at the time).   
   : :>>   
   : :>> at any rate, the reconstructions I gave are from Semitic linguistics   
   : :>   
   : :> actually Ashkenazi pronounciation is based on Mesopotamian Aramaic,   
   : :> with its affricated tsade. an affricated tsade is tenable for Ancient   
   : :> Hebrew, but it did have the "emphasis" (pharyngealization or   
   : :> glottalization) present in Oriental pronounciations. Oriental   
   : :> pronounciations are in general more conservative.   
      
   : : I am sure that ancient biblical Hebrew was much more aligned to   
   : : Mesopotamian then to what is today Oriental pronunciations.   
      
   : Google is not releasing my post so I am answering again from a different   
   : account.   
      
   : what are basing your claim upon?   
      
   : Mesopotamian recitations of Hebrew at the time of the Babylonian Talmud   
   : were by and large similar to today's "Oriental" pronounciations. although   
   : Babylonian Aramaic had a tendency to weaken the pharygeals (I don't think   
   : Modern Iraqi jews have this tendency, being influenced by Arabic), ayin   
   : and heth it still mostly preserved them. it also preserved the emphatics.   
      
   : at any rate, Modern Israeli Hebrew, which is mostly based on European   
   : recitations, has fewer sounds than is represented by the alphabet, ergo,   
   : it cannot be conservative.   
      
   : Biblical Hebrew had more phonemes than is represented in the alphabet. at   
   : the time of the LXX to up to around the beginning of the 1st millenium at   
   : least ayin and heth represented, along with the pharygeals /3/ and /H/   
   : also represented /*gh*/ (Arabic ghayn) and /*kh*/ (Arabic kha)   
   : respectively, but later became exclusively pharyngeals by the time of the   
   : Masorites. we know that from transcription in to Greek especially the   
   : LXX and transcriptions in cuneiform. further back, samekh and sin were   
   : differentiated in sound.   
      
   : even further back, one may assume that at least some Canaanite dialects   
   : preserved some of the Semitic phonemes represented in Arabic, but these   
   : are hard to determine.   
      
   : don't smply assume that Hebrew as you know it is more conservative, but   
   : learn Semitic linguistics. otherwise, you will end up like Aggie.   
      
   for the Masoretic pronounciation and the pronounciation of various Jewish   
   communities see   
      
   http://www.bjeindy.org/encyclopedia_judaica_online   
      
   search for "Hebrew Grammar"   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)