[B-Greek] Dating Beta Fricativization

R Yochanan Bitan Buth ybitan at mscc.huji.ac.il
Mon Sep 12 12:37:25 EDT 2005


Vadim ERWTHSEN
>It is established than beta was non-aspirated in antiquity untilthe
first century BCE. It is also clear than beta was fully fricativized
in the eleventh century.
>It is unclear to me, why beta is thought to be aspirated by the fifth
century?
>I work with Theodoret's Iabe, and the dating of beta-vita shift is
essential. If beta was still non-aspirated, then Thedoret's reflects
transliteration of YHWH, not actual pronunciation.
>Randall Buth in http://biblicalulpan.org/PDF%20Files/PRONSYS1_US.pdf,
cites first and second century Latin loans into Greek, where v became
beta, as evidence of fricativized beta. This, I believe, show wrong
methodology. It is no wonder that Greeks transliterated Latin v with
b, their basic choice; ou would be a better choice only if Latin v was
very aspirated, almost a vowel, which seems unlikely by the time. The
correct argument would be Greek loans in Latin written with v. I am
not aware of any.
>Would anyone suggest a firmer evidence for dating the fricativization
of beta?
>Vadim Cherny>

 

There are three points to add.

 

1. Actually, you do need to use the Greek changes on Latin. OU had
always been the natural choice. In the Greek to Latin direction we
have the problem of historical spelling and the obvious etymological
connection between Greek 'B' and Latin 'B'. All the more so for loan
words or names which entered Latin in the BCE period when Greek was
still a stop "B". (For evidence, pro and con, you should consult
Gignac.) It is in the Latin to Greek direction where Greek has a lack
and where a choice is compelled where the distinctions may then be
viewed. As for Latin 'v', I don't understand what 'aspirated' would
mean. V//W was never a stop, was never 'aspirated'. It started out as
a "w", which is a vowel "u" patterning as a consonant. I believe it's
consonant status then led to a bilabial voiced fricative "spanish v".
Also, it must be remembered that with Greek 'BETA' // 'VETA' we are
dealing with a subphonemic phenomenon, different words are not
distinguished by this, so it is very difficult to document within
Greek. Phonemic shifts, like those that take place in the vowels, are
much more evident and easy to document, by a factor of 1000 to 1. 

 

2. Phonological changes in languages tend to be fairly symmetric by
'feature'. While it is correct to check and trace each phoneme or etic
realization separately, it is also true that other parallel evidence
can be supportive. Not only do we have the Veta evidence listed above
but we have pretty strong fricative 'ghamma' evidence as well. For
example, it is almost unthinkable that a 'ghamma' would be inserted
into a vowel sequence unless (a) it had fricativized, and (b) it had
palatalized close to 'y' with front vowels. A first century form like
IGEREUS 'priest' is telling. 

 

3. You cite IABE by Theodoret a 5th century Greek writer. It would be
difficult to conceive of B transcribing a VAV//'wau' if VETA had not
already become a fricative. There would not have been little, if any,
LXX precedent for transliterating anything except Hebrew Bet with
Beta. Those Bet=Beta equivalencies that could be argued to be
historical transliterations, but they don't have anything to do with
VAV//wau.

 

There is also more evidence than that in the summary article on the
website. Both Gignac's extensive work as well as Horrocks' summaries
should be consulted, fuller citations in the footnotes on the website.


 

ERRWSO

Randall Buth 

 

 

Randall Buth, PhD

Director, Biblical Language Center

www.biblicalulpan.org

and Director, Biblical Studies in Israel

Hebrew University, Rothberg International School

ybitan at mscc.huji.ac.il

 




More information about the B-Greek mailing list