[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
orion-list writing systems
[The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set]
[Your display is set for the "ISO-8859-8" character set]
[Some characters may be displayed incorrectly]
> Do you realize just how much you have read as you wanted to
> read and not as what was written? For example:
> >> Hebrew has 27 members in its symbol set, not 22.
> Modern Hebrew, as that was what your statement was about.
I was talking about Qumran Hebrew the whole time, not anything
else. I don't know how that could have been more clear. Modern
Hebrew is not in any way an interest in my questions concerning
your analysis. I agree that modern Hebrew has 27 symbol forms.
Now can we get back to Qumran Hebrew. I observed that you
were adding a 23rd letter to the Qumran Hebrew alphabet when
you allege a systematic scribal distinction in writing Shin and Sin.
What were you disputing with me about that? Is that a correct
description of what you are saying or isn't it? You have not
clearly said yes or no to this. Please, inquiring minds want to
> >But almost all of your claims to separate scribes
> >and Shin/Sin differences are derived from claims made on
> >the basis of single letter exemplars.
> We are to go over thousands of examples on the Internet? Sure we do.
> [big snip]
I need at least three Sins in sequence by the same scribe, by
which to check with at least three interspersed Shins. That
is a reasonable, minimal request, which should require perhaps
three sentences in a brief post to provide, with simple
descriptive characteristics that you see as systematically
> >The "elongation of the
> >yod" is a STRESS NOTATION??? This one is a real shocker. You think
> >Qumran scribes intentionally wrote certain letters longer to signal
> Good heavens, of course they did - what on earth do you think trilinear
> limits are all about? What do you think those "big" and "little" letters
> are? Why do you think those yods are elongated? Oh, that's right, scribal
I don't think Emanuel Tov, in his extensive, exhaustive work on
Qumran scribes, has ever noticed any such thing in Qumran texts.
Nor has anyone else, nor, in my humble personal efforts, have I.
Do you honestly expect assertion alone, without even a basic,
elementary demonstration, to be at all credible?
The typical Qumran word, if it is two syllables, will have 50
percent stressed syllables. To find a stroke in a letter in that
syllable slightly longer than average, in a single example, will
occur by complete chance about 50 percent of the time. You
cite single examples of this as if you have shown something.
This is unsound method. Your claim requires demonstration of
pattern, not anecdotal single examples cited at random with
no check for the existence of systematic pattern or not.
Again, all it would take is 1-2 lines of writing from any
Qumran text by the same scribe, and just go through at least
6-8 words in sequence analyzing the letters and "elongations"
and lack of elongations systematically, correlating them to
stress. This, I admit, would take a little longer than
the three lines needed to demonstrate the Sin/Shin claim.
This one might take a full two to three screens in one post
to do it well.
> >A single good demonstration of this phenomenon
> >would be big news.
> Eh? It would? A "major breakthrough" on what is an everyday, perfectly
> normal writing enhancement technique that shows up all over the place
> in every writing system borrowed from the Phoenician and that lasted
> in England down to the 15th century CE? If you say so.
Yes, please, on bended knee, I ask, would you humor me?
I am a very slow learner, and sort of need to see for myself.
Would you give just one demonstration, in any Qumran text,
of the nature I have just described, showing systematic use
of this writing enhancement technique?
> Tell you what, read my book when I finish it... you'll get your examples,
> lots of examples, and in lots of languages.
I will certainly look forward to your book. Note that I am not disputing
your descriptions of other languages, nor the existence of examples
in other languages. My sole focus has been on your claims in
Qumran texts. In all truthfulness, I see tremendous strength and
potential, including for certain kinds of questions to be brought to
the study of Qumran scribal practices, from your obviously extensive
study of comparative and historical scribal systems. I hope nothing
in my posts is interpreted by you or any reader on this list as
failing to respect that, and best wishes on a successful publication.
For private reply, e-mail to Greg Doudna <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to email@example.com with
the message: "unsubscribe Orion." For more information on the Orion Center
or for Orion archives, visit our web site http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.