From: owner-ane To: ane-digest@oi.uchicago.edu Subject: Ancient Near East Digest V3 #173 Reply-To: Errors-To: owner-ane Precedence: bulk Ancient Near East Digest Sunday, 2 June 1996 Volume 03 : Number 173 Semitic alphabet out of hieroglyphs Archaeology in Israel post elections Re: END OF SCIENCE in Israel Re: Archaeology in Israel post elections Re: Archaeology in Israel post elections Re: END OF SCIENCE in Israel Re: END OF SCIENCE in Israel Re: Archaeology in Israel post elections Re: END OF SCIENCE in Israel Re: Vowel Transduction (Longish) ANE DISC Hebrew word order, III Re: Your ANE post - numeration end of science Semitic alphabet the finger Re: DSB one more time Re: Writing Origination ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter Daniels Date: Sat, 1 Jun 1996 22:01:12 -0500 Subject: Semitic alphabet out of hieroglyphs The reason I can't accept that (as David Lorton put the claim) "the Semitic alphabet was developed out of signs in the Egyptian writing system" is that the Semitic signs don't have the same values as the hieroglyphs they resemble. If some clever Semitic-speaker decided to write Semitic using hieroglyphs-- say, the monoconsonantal ones only, which the Egyptians never used as a set-- then wouldn't the symbols have come over with their existing values (even though the acrophony would no longer work), as hjappened in the transfer from Phoenician to Greek? I think the most we can say ius that Phoenicians (Semites) had some idea of how Egyptian writing worked (possibly the source for writing consonants only?), but had not learned the system. Note that certain developments in the adapta- tion of Cuneiform to new languages pointed toward the isolation of consonants (see Gragg in WWS for Hittite and Hurrian orthography; note that Hurrian was probably used in the Levant at the appropriate time--thois new Hurrian archive should be very helpful; did they announce a date for the texts?) The supposed resemblances in shape (only) between early Semitic (remember I haven't been persuaded that Proto-Sinaitic belongs in the sequence) can be accidental. ONe of the early 20th-century grammatologists--I think it was Hans Bauer, I'm pretty sure it's in that little pamphlet series AO 9Der alte Orient?) - --did an experiment asking little children toinvent a new alphabet, and the symbols they came up with looked like some of the Semitic lettters. (I think Gelb reproduces an illustration, so you can get the reference there.) After all, there are only so many simple marks to draw a set of 25-30 from. ------------------------------ From: eliot@israntique.org.il Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 08:44:49 +0300 (IDT) Subject: Archaeology in Israel post elections I would like to share some of my personal feelings on this subject. What to do is not to PANIC nor to exaggerate. Whatever the results of the election there is still a matter of laws and legal procedures. Nothing has changed legally as a result of the elections and even if it does it is an internal matter for Israelis. Further, much of what you wrote is not yet founded. I hope that none of it comes to pass. I should note that the radio said this morning that the most likely candidate for minister of education (the ministry directly responsible for the antiquities authority) will be Zebulon Hammer. He has acted in that capacity in the past and there were no major problems. The question of excavating burials and the reburial of bones is a very delicate issue that will undoubtedly pop up again in the future. I know that in the US its a hot issue and from time to time we hear about the problems on the net. Mr. Simon, have you turned to international organizations about that? We must wait and see what happens in Israel. I agree that the political climate is not going to be the most liberal as a result of some of the religious parties rise to power in the government but just how that will effect archaeology here remains to be seen. I hope that I don't send the next communications from jail. Eliot Braun at (not spokesman for) the Israel Antiquities Authority. On 1 Jun 1996, Paul Simon wrote: > > I have just had a fax from an archaeologist friend in Israel with the > shocking results of the Israeli elections. > > He writes that the extremist-religious leaders have now said that they will > ban Israeli archaeologists from excavating anywhere where the ultra-orthodox > suspect there may be graves of those they believe are their ancestors. He > also said that the extremists' leader declared on radio that they will now > prosecute and jail all archaeologists who have excavated human burials since > 1978 and that the skeletal collections in the universities and antiquities > authority will be reburied. > > What can we do to stop the religious extremism? Next thing they will be > arresting all Israeli scientists. Is there any way the UNESCO can get > involved? Can anyone provide email addresses where we can send protest to? > > Paul Simon > Southport, England > > > ------------------------------ From: avigdor horovitz Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 10:49:12 +0300 (IDT) Subject: Re: END OF SCIENCE in Israel Dear Mr. Simon, Altough I am concerned about the way the religious parties in Israel will influence archaeological research in Israel, I found your message offensive and hyperpolitical. PLease keep your political views to yourself or relay them individually to other who share them. The elections are over and the people has spoken in one of the most democratic elections imaginable (over 80% turnout from ALL sectors of the population, and ALL voting their conscience in an election concerning issues of lide and death, national survival, personal security, etc. etc.) The problems caused by this coaltion partner or that are part and parcel of israeli politics. Every party will have demands and everything will be up for negotiating and not a little horse trading. It is horrible but that's the way it is here. Anyone Jew who doesn't like the process is warmly invitred to make aliyah and participate in it and change it, but if iot can't be changed, the results of teh election are binding on the public. Everyone won or lost fair and square. Avigdor Hurowitz] Beer Sheva, ISRAEL On 1 Jun 1996, Paul Simon wrote: > > I have just had a fax from an archaeologist friend in Israel with the > shocking results of the Israeli elections. > > He writes that the extremist-religious leaders have now said that they will > ban Israeli archaeologists from excavating anywhere where the ultra-orthodox > suspect there may be graves of those they believe are their ancestors. He > also said that the extremists' leader declared on radio that they will now > prosecute and jail all archaeologists who have excavated human burials since > 1978 and that the skeletal collections in the universities and antiquities > authority will be reburied. > > What can we do to stop the religious extremism? Next thing they will be > arresting all Israeli scientists. Is there any way the UNESCO can get > involved? Can anyone provide email addresses where we can send protest to? > > Paul Simon > Southport, England > > ------------------------------ From: avigdor horovitz Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 10:51:52 +0300 (IDT) Subject: Re: Archaeology in Israel post elections Dear Eliot, I just wrote my comments on paul sImon's psoting. I find your's much more palatable and level headed. Hopefully the debate or confrontation which may be expected will be handled in a maner closer to your method thatn Simon's/ Avigdor Hurowitz Beer Sheva, ISRAEL On Sun, 2 Jun 1996 eliot@israntique.org.il wrote: > I would like to share some of my personal feelings on this subject. > What to do is not to PANIC nor to exaggerate. Whatever the results of > the election there is still a matter of laws and legal procedures. > Nothing has changed legally as a result of the elections and even if it > does it is an internal matter for Israelis. Further, much of what you wrote is not yet founded. I > hope that none of it comes to pass. I should note that the radio said > this morning that the most likely candidate for minister of education > (the ministry directly responsible for the antiquities authority) will be > Zebulon Hammer. He has acted in that capacity in the past and there were > no major problems. > The question of excavating burials and the reburial of bones is a > very delicate issue that will undoubtedly pop up again in the future. > I know that in the US its a hot issue and from time to time we hear > about the problems on the net. Mr. Simon, have you turned to > international organizations about that? We must wait and see what > happens in Israel. I agree that the political climate is not going to be > the most liberal as a result of some of the religious parties rise to > power in the government but just how that will effect archaeology here > remains to be seen. > I hope that I don't send the next communications from jail. Eliot Braun > at (not spokesman for) the Israel Antiquities Authority. > > On 1 Jun 1996, Paul Simon wrote: > > > > > I have just had a fax from an archaeologist friend in Israel with the > > shocking results of the Israeli elections. > > > > He writes that the extremist-religious leaders have now said that they will > > ban Israeli archaeologists from excavating anywhere where the ultra-orthodox > > suspect there may be graves of those they believe are their ancestors. He > > also said that the extremists' leader declared on radio that they will now > > prosecute and jail all archaeologists who have excavated human burials since > > 1978 and that the skeletal collections in the universities and antiquities > > authority will be reburied. > > > > What can we do to stop the religious extremism? Next thing they will be > > arresting all Israeli scientists. Is there any way the UNESCO can get > > involved? Can anyone provide email addresses where we can send protest to? > > > > Paul Simon > > Southport, England > > > > > > > ------------------------------ From: jo@israntique.org.il Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 14:14:39 +0300 (IDT) Subject: Re: Archaeology in Israel post elections As one which has borne many of the attacks from the ultra orthodox over the issue of human skeletal remains I heartly disagree with the posting of A. Horovitz to Paul Simon which I feel is totally inappropiate. To suggest that human skeletal remains are an internal issue, where does one draw the line? Are the early Homo Sapiens ca.100,000 BP skeletons from Jebel Qafzeh Israeli, are they Jewish? How about the Neanderthal specimens, should they be taken off display and reburied?? I believe you get the drift of the argument in that to insist that these questions are an internal matter is parochial and short sighted. These remains like much of the cultural history excavated here belong to Humankind and not to the dictates of some extremist group. Likewise much of our research efforts over the past few years have been in the area of ancient disease which can have an impact on todays health, disease is after all something which afflicts all of us irrespective of borders. As for the religious leaders defination of what remains are Jewish, as if they are concerned, let me remind you that thousands of human remains from a Byzantine Christian cemetery were 'hijacked' for a Jewish reburial two years ago. Furthermore, as Mr. Horovitz should be aware of, due to the country's liberal policy of licensing excavations many of the leading excavations here in the country are done by outsiders and it is outsiders, in the form of student volunteers from abroad who carry the burden of excavating in our digs. Without this outside support Israel would not have made the rapid advances in uncovering the past as it has. These fateful changes are in the offing, and believe me it is just a matter of time before "the bell tolls for thee" and the rest of us in the profession be it in Israel, or outside it's borders. ============================= Joe Zias Curator of Anthropology/Archaeology Israel Antiquities Authority POB 586, Jerusalem Tel. 972 2 292624 ------------------------------ From: Patrick Ryan Date: Sun, 02 Jun 1996 05:30:14 -0700 Subject: Re: END OF SCIENCE in Israel avigdor horovitz wrote: > > Dear Mr. Simon, > Altough I am concerned about the way the religious parties in Israel will > influence archaeological research in Israel, I found your message > offensive and hyperpolitical. PLease keep your political views to > yourself or relay them individually to other who share them. The > elections are over and the people has spoken in one of the most > democratic elections imaginable (over 80% turnout from ALL sectors of the > population, and ALL voting their conscience in an election concerning > issues of lide and death, national survival, personal security, etc. > etc.) The problems caused by this coaltion partner or that are part and > parcel of israeli politics. Every party will have demands and everything > will be up for negotiating and not a little horse trading. It is > horrible but that's the way it is here. Anyone Jew who doesn't like the > process is warmly invitred to make aliyah and participate in it and > change it, but if iot can't be changed, the results of teh election are > binding on the public. Everyone won or lost fair and square. > Avigdor Hurowitz] > Beer Sheva, ISRAEL > > On 1 Jun 1996, Paul Simon wrote: > > > > > I have just had a fax from an archaeologist friend in Israel with the > > shocking results of the Israeli elections. > > > > He writes that the extremist-religious leaders have now said that they will > > ban Israeli archaeologists from excavating anywhere where the ultra-orthodox > > suspect there may be graves of those they believe are their ancestors. He > > also said that the extremists' leader declared on radio that they will now > > prosecute and jail all archaeologists who have excavated human burials since > > 1978 and that the skeletal collections in the universities and antiquities > > authority will be reburied. > > > > What can we do to stop the religious extremism? Next thing they will be > > arresting all Israeli scientists. Is there any way the UNESCO can get > > involved? Can anyone provide email addresses where we can send protest to? > > > > Paul Simon > > Southport, England > > > >Dear Mr. Horovitz: If you find Mr. Simon's views offensive, you should know that your own political views will be found offensive by many. Pat Ryan ------------------------------ From: avigdor horovitz Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 14:10:09 +0300 (IDT) Subject: Re: END OF SCIENCE in Israel Dear Mr. Ryan, I don't know if you have any idea of my political views, nor was I the first to set off this unfortunate discussion. Nor will you know what my polit9ical views are for I will not discuss them on email. Also, I myself don't know what my views are, so where do you have the audacity to not like them! Hurowitz ------------------------------ From: avigdor horovitz Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 16:02:54 +0300 (IDT) Subject: Re: Archaeology in Israel post elections Dear Joe, Where in my message did I say anything relating to the numerous things you mention? I objected to the political tones of Simon's message and to the terms like extremeist and the panic undertones. As a scholar of the ANE I am as interested as everyone on this list in freedom of excavation etc. But we have a new plitical situation, the professional ramifications of which must be dealt with calmly, rationally, and in a way appropriate to the ladies and gentlemen we think we are. The last thing wo be done is to sling mud. Avigdor Hurowitz On Sun, 2 Jun 1996 jo@israntique.org.il wrote: > As one which has borne many of the attacks from the ultra orthodox over > the issue of human skeletal remains I heartly disagree with the posting > of A. Horovitz to Paul Simon which I feel is totally inappropiate. To > suggest that human skeletal remains are an internal issue, where does one > draw the line? Are the early Homo Sapiens ca.100,000 BP skeletons from > Jebel Qafzeh Israeli, are they Jewish? How about the Neanderthal > specimens, should they be taken off display and reburied?? I believe you > get the drift of the argument in that to insist that these questions are > an internal matter is parochial and short sighted. These remains like > much of the cultural history excavated here belong to Humankind and not > to the dictates of some extremist group. Likewise much of our research > efforts over the past few years have been in the area of ancient disease > which can have an impact on todays health, disease is after all something > which afflicts all of us irrespective of borders. As for the religious > leaders defination of what remains are Jewish, as if they are concerned, > let me remind you that thousands of human remains from a Byzantine > Christian cemetery were 'hijacked' for a Jewish reburial two > years ago. > > Furthermore, as > Mr. Horovitz should be aware of, due to the country's liberal policy of > licensing excavations many of the leading excavations here in the country > are done by outsiders and it is outsiders, in the form of student > volunteers from abroad who carry the burden of excavating in our digs. > Without > this outside support Israel would not have made the rapid advances in > uncovering the past as it has. These fateful changes are in the > offing, > and believe me it is just a matter of time before "the bell tolls for thee" > and the rest of us in the profession be it in Israel, or outside it's > borders. > ============================= > Joe Zias > Curator of Anthropology/Archaeology > Israel Antiquities Authority > POB 586, Jerusalem > Tel. 972 2 292624 > ------------------------------ From: sam@israntique.org.il Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 18:54:56 +0300 (IDT) Subject: Re: END OF SCIENCE in Israel On 1 Jun 1996, Paul Simon wrote: > I have just had a fax from an archaeologist friend in Israel with the > shocking results of the Israeli elections. > > He writes that the extremist-religious leaders have now said that they will > ban Israeli archaeologists from excavating anywhere where the ultra-orthodox > suspect there may be graves of those they believe are their ancestors. He > also said that the extremists' leader declared on radio that they will now > prosecute and jail all archaeologists who have excavated human burials since > 1978 and that the skeletal collections in the universities and antiquities > authority will be reburied. Gee, I hope not. In the next issue of Atiqot I have an article on a tomb I excavated in North Jerusalem, on the Shuafat Ridge. The tomb, by the way, was discovered during construction of a religious neighborhood. It is interesting that the ultra-orthodox didn't even come by during the time of the excavations. Could it be that they didn't want to discover that Jewish burials were located where they intend to live, since it would be against halakha (Jewish law) to live above Jewish tombs? Such hypocrisy is tough to stomach. By the way, there is no skeletal collection at the Antiquities Authority. All has already been turned over to the religious authorities. > What can we do to stop the religious extremism? Next thing they will be > arresting all Israeli scientists. Is there any way the UNESCO can get > involved? Can anyone provide email addresses where we can send protest to? Letters or petitions to Mr. Netanyahu, to the next Minister of Education and Culture, when he/she is appointed, and to the Attorney General, Michael Ben Yair, who made the ruling that human skeletal remains are not to be regarded as antiquities and therefore are not subject to scientific analyses, would be in order, but I am not optimistic that they would help. I don't have addresses available,but will find out if you can't get them via the nearest Israeli consulate or embassy. It didn't take long for the orthodox to bring up the issue of archaeology. Immediately after the first post-election Shabbat was concluded, that is, on Saturday evening, the orthodox rioted in Mea Shearim against archaeologists excavating in the region of Ben Shemen, east of the airport, resulting in the closure of several streets and minor damage. Sam Wolff ------------------------------ From: "Robert Whiting; Tel +358-0-191-23289" Date: Sun, 02 Jun 1996 18:16:49 +0300 Subject: Re: Vowel Transduction (Longish) On Fri, 31 May 1996 Will Wagers wrote: > Robert Whiting; Tel +358-0-191-23289 writes on 5/31/96: > > > But this acoustic > > signal-processing information itself is never presented to the conscious > > mind, which only deals with the semantic content of the words. In > > short, the processor filters out the complex acoustic information so > > that the conscious mind is not aware of it. Therefore the simplicity > > or complexity of the speech sounds has no meaning for the conscious mind, > > which has subcontracted the processing of this information. > > > > But for written communication it is completely irrelevant. Writing has > > no acoustic component. This is what writing is about. It bypasses the > > need for spoken communication. Graphic information is processed by the > > brain in an entirely different manner. Therefore there is simply no > > relationship between acoustic signal-processing information and written > > information. > > I find that we are substantially in agreement on some basic points. However, > I would like to find the cause of our disconnect. In earlier postings, you > write: > > "As I said earlier, a full writing system is capable of expressing > any concept that can be formulated in language. Because of this, > full writing systems are characterized by a more or less fixed > correspondence between the signs of the writing system and > elements of the language the writing expresses. The elements > of language so represented can be either words, syllables, or > individual sounds (phonemes), and thus writing systems can be > categorized as word (logographic), syllabic, or alphabetic." > > Are you not referring here to the relation between spoken "words, syllables, > or individual sounds (phonemes)" and written symbols ? Yes, that is exactly what I am talking about. But this relationship is not based on the ability or capability of the written symbols to make sounds. The written symbols represent sounds, they don't make them. Someone who knows the system can look at the written symbols and reproduce the sounds, but no matter how long you listen to them, the symbols won't make any sound themselves. > If, as you say, "for written communication it is completely irrelevant", > then what can this possibly mean: > > "The final step in attaining fully alphabetic writing is the > separation of > the consonant sounds from the vowel sounds and the writing of each > separately." The creation of separate symbols for consonants and vowels means that each can be recognized "unambiguously" meaning that theoretically no sounds have to be supplied by the reader. But these symbols still don't make any sounds themselves. > Elsewhere, you mention "the number of signs required to write a given > utterance". Surely, all this indicates an appreciation of the relation > between acoustic and written information and of a developmental sequence > in which vowel notation appears at some stage. Mathematical notation, > which despite having associated vocalizations, does not itself describe > speech, so will never develop a vowel notation. Thus, the mere fact > that vowel notation appears indicates that language writing systems are > not only not independent of spoken language, they, in fact, tend to > represent spoken language more and more accurately, e.g. phonetic > alphabets. There are, of course, economical considerations of the > medium involved. As I said elsewhere, a "full writing system" must be phonetic. Once something is written using such a system, the result is said to be "written in a certain language," and it is the phonetic nature of the writing system that ties that particluar writing to that particular language. Thus if we use some version of the Latin alphabet to write English or French or German or Polish or Chinese, the writing system "represents" the sounds of the particular language through arbitrary but agreed upon conventions. But the symbols still don't make any sounds themselves. > Given, the relation you refer to repeatedly in your "Writing Systems" > posting, why would some writing systems develop without a vowel > notation ? Or, why would they develop later, rather than sooner ? I accept > that a syllabic system implies the vowel. The answer may lie outside the > linguistic domain, but there is an answer. The reason why some writing systems can get along without indicating most of the vowels is because in these systems the vocalic information is, in most instances, predictable from the context. Later or sooner doesn't really enter into it. It is more a function of the structure of the language. Arabic and Hebrew scripts still do not make extensive use of vowel signs. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred the vowels can be supplied by the reader and are not written even though the modern versions of these scripts have symbols for them. But even the consonantal parts of these scripts still don't make any sounds. > Speaking personally, I cannot learn a foreign language - whether > mathematical notation or Greek - without having a ready vocalization > of each new element. In fact upon encountering a new written word, my > first question is always, "How do you say that?", or, if a vocalized word, > "How do you spell that?" My brain is obviously attempting to correlate > the two at every opportunity. I also must correlate the written version with the speech sounds when learning a new language. But this is not the way that children learn a language. Children learn to hear and speak long before they learn to read and write. Children learn languages inductively while most of us old folks have to learn them deductively. Many people learn to speak a language as a child without ever learning how to read and write. Children learn the phonolgy by imitation and later have to be taught the relationship between written characters and the sounds they represent. But the written characters still don't make any sounds themselves. > Therefore, I find your strong statement - "there is simply no relationship > between acoustic signal-processing information and written information" > - to be plainly contradicted by your own writings. So, please clarify this > for me. Acoustic signal-processing information is irrelevant to written information because the written infomation does not make any sounds on its own. To clarify what I mean by this let me go back to my writing systems posting where I introduced the concept of phonetic indicators: Here we have for the first time signs used for purely phonetic (that is, non-logographic) purposes. In other words the sign functions not to call to mind an idea and the word associated with it, but to call to mind a sound that is part of the word that the logogram being read represents. The key expression here is "call to mind." This is a process that takes place somewhere in the brain. So long as the process remains in the mind there is no acoustic information involved. And this is true of anything we read. We do not have to speak aloud what we read in order to provide acoustic information for our brain to analyze. Our brain makes this step unnecessary because it knows how the symbols of the writing represent the sounds that would be made if the words were spoken. So the reading processor functions in an analogous manner to the speech processor: both present only words to the conscious mind which the conscious mind then deals with on a semantic level. I suspect that the reading processor also supplies anything that the writing system does not indicate directly, such as the phonetic realization of logograms, the vocalization of words written in Hebrew or Arabic script, or the proper sound of such ambiguously written English words as "cough" or "through". Only if the processor has not been trained to deal with these does it flag the word as problematic before passing it to the conscious mind. If it doesn't realize that there is a problem it may pass it through incorrectly, giving the word the wrong sounds. This too is a matter of training or knowlegde. > > Wondering how writing systems can get along without vowels > > when these sounds have the most complex acoustic structure seems to me > > like wondering how such a complex sound as /e/ can have the simplest > > representation in Morse code. The two things just have nothing to do > > with each other. > > No, it would be like wondering why there were no vowels in Morse code > (if there weren't). (The reason for the /e/ coding is, of course, that as a > matter of economy, the more frequently used letters have the shortest > coding; so, even here there is a valid answer to a valid question.) Yes there is a valid answer, and as you are quick to see it is based on the fact that the acoustic properties of /e/ are irrelevant to both question and answer. > You seem to imply that external representations of "language(?)" are > determined solely by the nature of the medium. All I say is that written communication has no acoustic content. The signs of a writing system do not make any sounds by themselves. > Since vowels appear at a certain stage in written language but were > always present in speech, this cannot be so. This is a false conclusion based on a false premise. Whether Sumerian is or is not the earliest writing system, it is clearly way up there near the beginning. And Sumerian, through its syllabary, indicated vowels fully. Sumerian had signs for /ba/, /bi/, /be/, /bu/, /ab/, /ib/, and /ub/ (/eb/ was expressed with the sign for /ib/), etc. Since the indication of vowels was explicit in one of the earliest writing systems, the premise is false. The fact that the Egyptian writing system did not express vowels is more likely to be related to the structure of the language than any other factor (i.e., as stated above, the vocalization of a word was probably obvious from its context). But typologically, Egyptian writing was the same as Sumerian (logo-syllabic using semantic and phonetic indicators). West Semitic scripts followed the Egyptian model in not indicating vowels, and the fact that Semitic languages were so structured that the consonants and vowels carried complementary sets of information (consonants carry the lexical information, vowels carry the functional information) meant that these scripts could (and still do) function very well without indicating the vowels since these were mostly obvious from the context. The addition of separate characters for vowels was a contribution of the Greeks, who took over a West Semitic script and obviously found that its ambiguous expression of vowels was not adequate for their language. But this is only a matter of historical development and a pathway of one modern writing system as it passed from one language group to another. Other pathways might have been possible (e.g., the development of the Devanagari script). Alphabetic writing is only one solution. There are logo-syllabic systems and syllabaries still in use. Bob Whiting ------------------------------ From: Vincent DeCaen Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 11:48:25 -0400 (EDT) Subject: ANE DISC Hebrew word order, III a reconsideration of Hebrew syntax, in particular the standard VSO, in light of Daniel 1, and an attempt to develop new lines of investigation. - ------------------------------- let us first take up Niccacci's neglected point of Hebrew syntax. in Dan 1 there is a near minimal pair, which exhausts the tokens in this chapter. (1) v5 umiqSatam ya9amdu lifne hammelex and.from.their.end they.stand before the.king (2) v12 weyittnu lanu min hazzero9im and.they.give to.us from the.vegetables - --------------------------------- 1. first point: perhaps the reason Niccacci's point is so neglected is simply numbers? statistically, these constructions don't even register. (theoretically, of course, statistics are not relevant.) 2. the conjunction. the semantics is not affected in either case by the conjunction; and it is in fact ubiquitous: in Sam-Kgs it is a challenge to find main clauses *without* the conjunction! there are some who might analyze weyittnu as a weyiqtol; but here it's quite clearly a case of simple conjunction, no purpose or result is present. I will assume that 1) and 2) are both instances of simple yiqtol. 3. in which case, we have a classic Niccacci scenario: 1) x-Yiqtol, "indicative" 2) Yiqtol, "jussive" or in my terms: 1) verb-second "nonpast" 2) verb-first "modal" (imperative) - ---------------------------------------------- why should this statistically marginal data be able to stand the traditional theory on its head? let's take 1) apart from the traditional standpoint. 4. first, under traditional assumptions, 1) is derived by an optional fronting operation from a basic VSO order, the effect of which is some ill-defined "emphasis" on "from the their end". 5. this leads to a minimal pair separated only by the emphasis on the fronted constituent: 1a) umiqSatam ya9amdu lifne hammelex 1b) weya9amdu miqSatam lifne hammelex 6. according to the traditional hypothesis, 1b) is unmarked with respect to emphasis, and unmarked indeed in any respect including semantics. 7. however, as Niccacci and your humble scribbler and Seth found, there is a major difference in meaning between 1a) and 1b) which can be established as a strong generalization throughout the biblical corpus: 1a) stand/will stand; 1b) may they stand!/ let them stand! 8. this is what we find in 2), the ordering assumed unmarked and semantically and pragmatically neutral is actually NOT: this is the highly charged modal/jussive construction. the semantically unmarked ordering is the one with the fronting (and I would argue, pragmatically/emphasis neutral too, to boot). - --------------------------------------------- results so far, i. Niccacci's neglected point of Hebrew syntax is a real problem in traditional perspective: verb-initial yiqtol is jussive, verb-second yiqtol is the regular indicative. ii. Niccacci's generalization holds in Dan 1, two tokens contrasting as expected. iii. the traditional VSO hypothesis makes the wrong predictions, in fact we get a mirror image of sorts. iv. the neutral reading of the yiqtol is found with the supposedly marked syntactic order. v. the fronting operation is only supposed to emphasize the constituent, but... vi. in fact, this optional fronting would have to be viewed as obligatorily blocking the jussive reading..... vii. for the supposedly unmarked syntax gives the marked jussive reading. viii. in summary, an optional emphasis-bearing transformation must be obligatorily used to block the marked jussive reading in the particular case of the yiqtol or prefixed conjugation. some have called this "pseudo-topicalization" (e.g., Buth in his diss on Aramaic). (I would call this "nuts"). - ------------------------------------------- next step, we need to digest these results, and consider what theory of Hebrew syntax would adequately capture the contrast in 1) and 2), or in 1a) and 1b). hint, we need to revisit the "basic word order"... - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Vincent DeCaen Hebrew Syntax Encoding Initiative http://www.chass.utoronto.ca:8080/~decaen/hsei/intro.html c/o Deparment of Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations 4 Bancroft Ave., 3d floor, University of Toronto Toronto ON, M5S 1A1 CANADA - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- If you believed in conspiracy theories... you might think that modern capitalism has conspired to give us more television channels to disguise the fact that it is giving us fewer jobs. - --Charles Gordon, columnist ------------------------------ From: KNEMET@aol.com Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 11:54:00 -0400 Subject: Re: Your ANE post - numeration Dear Milo, Some systems of weights and measures used base 60 and others did not; this varied through time. Weights, such as mina, shekel and grain, use base sixty. Measures of length could easily be converted into the sexagesimal system in the Old Babylonian period, but in the Neo-Babylonian period, the sexagesimal system is not a factor. Some signs were used with certain measures only. In other cases, the amount and the type of measurement, such as volume, coalesced into one sign, as for example, the ban2 = sutu, or the nigida = parshiktum. Marvin Powell has an excellent article on weights and measures in Reallexicon der Assyriologie, vol. 7, pt. 1. Karen Nemet-Nejat ------------------------------ From: AMBROSER@woods.uml.edu Date: Sun, 02 Jun 1996 11:57:23 EDT Subject: end of science avigdor, Maybe you should take some of your earlier advice for yourself. Keep you politics out of the list. Paul was concerned about archaeology. You are the one who started up with politics and attempted to beat it into our heads. robert ------------------------------ From: David Lorton <103204.562@compuserve.com> Date: 02 Jun 96 11:57:16 EDT Subject: Semitic alphabet Peter Daniels misunderstood something in my last posting. I referred to an opinion that the Semitic alphabet was derived from hieratic, not hieroglyphs. I have no research interest in this topic, and no agenda to defend this view. There is in fact something of a case to be made for this point of view, and over twenty years ago, I heard the late Wolfgang Helck develop it in an unfortunately unpublished lecture. There are, however, a few letters that can't be accounted for by this theory. David Lorton ------------------------------ From: David Lorton <103204.562@compuserve.com> Date: 02 Jun 96 11:57:19 EDT Subject: the finger The question of what the Egyptians called the various fingers of the hand can be addressed by asking whether there is anything in the preserved evidence that speaks to the question. In the Egyptian "opening of the mouth ritual," the little finger is called _d_b' n_d_s, which means (would you believe?) "little finger." David Lorton ------------------------------ From: KNEMET@aol.com Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 12:02:47 -0400 Subject: Re: DSB one more time Dear David, As long as we are or are not saying the same thing, haggling over the definition of information and meaning are useless for me. I believe in explaining problems in mathematics, metrology and the origins of writing in a way so that scholars, who are not involved with these particular areas of the field, will understand what we are saying. Accessibility is my motto. Otherwise, you address a very small group of people within your wider field. Karen Nemet-Nejat ------------------------------ From: KNEMET@aol.com Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 12:05:58 -0400 Subject: Re: Writing Origination In any field which involves invention, we need to acquire a certain body of information through time order to create whatever technology, writing, mathematics, etc. Karen Nemet-Nejat ------------------------------ End of Ancient Near East Digest V3 #173 *************************************** Back issues are available by two means: anonymous FTP at oi.uchicago.edu in pub/ane/ OR on the World Wide Web (WWW) at ftp://oi.uchicago.edu/pub/ane/