[B-Greek] PEI, FEI, XEI, KSI, PSI (was pee or pie)

R Yochanan Bitan Buth ybitan at mscc.huji.ac.il
Sun Jul 9 12:43:32 EDT 2006


XERIN
 
George AIGRAPSE:
>I would think that "this" would obviously refer to the snippet of your post
which I copied.  No, I'm not attempting to overturn the general pattern of
equivalencies.>
 
Good, we have common, farreaching, solid ground. 
It is especially nice to read that list of Loeb p120 where the word in the
left column was pronounced EXACTLY like the right column. GRAFIN versus
GRAFEIN, etc.
 
> I am, however, suggesting that there might be regional equivalencies which
do not agree with the general pattern for which we should be alert. > 
 
Correct, or partially correct. If your regions were large, then you would
apply the majojrity dialectical phonemes for the language. You are back to
the seven vowel system, as outlined and documented all over the
Mediterranean. If your region is small enough, i.e., a locality, and/or
undocumented, then something substandard could have been happening. Often
people with a 'hillbilly' dialect will know how to talk with outsiders in
something approaching 'standard'. And as mentioned in the quoted footnote:
"Likewise, the equivalencies do not mean that marginal dialects would not
exist that did not follow the equivalencies of the major, majority dialects.
The equivalencies above point out what a traveller would hear in the
majority dialects all over the Mediterranean, from Rome to Judea, from the
Aegean to Egypt." 
I can't find anything here that we are in factual disagreement on.
 
In particular, and going on to another example, in the second century and
following there were converging pockets of people for whom HTA had joined
with EI and I. That is the six vowel system that ruled the Mediterranean
from, say, the 4-10th centuries. It was the post-Roman, Byzantine stage that
led into the modern 5-vowel system. None of this, of course, precludes
someone on Kos from speaking a word with a different vowel from standard.
But a substandard word on KW, or anywhere else, does not change the fact
that there was a 5-vowel system in place all over the Greek-speaking world
from around the 10 th century to the present.
 
> Ahah !  An Aegean listhp -- that illustrates my point.  There were
regional differences which go beyond what one might term an ideolect.>
 
Please try to understand this, your statement agrees with what I am saying.
I am talking about the difference between PHONEMES and phonetic sound. An
Aegean (Erasmian!)Theta was the same PHONEME as the Egyptian Teta. To
repeat, the phonetic realization of a phoneme can change from dialect to
dialect, while the phoneme itself is still attested. A seven-vowel system in
Judea directly matched a seven-vowel system in Egypt, the Aegean and in
Rome. By being attested in all corners of the Mediterranean, in NT
manuscripts, Egyptian papyri, catacombs, and Anatolian inscriptions, one can
only conclude that that was the standard dialect, everywhere understood. The
phonemes would have sounded slightly different, but they are the same
phonemes. Standard Roman period KOINH had 7 vowel phonemes and was shifting
toward a six-vowel system. Anyone who pronounced HTA as EI and I was using a
6-vowel system. If a farmer in southern Egypt or the island of Crete had a
five-vowel system (i.e. no distinction for OI or U), then that was
substandard and he was ahead of the game. He still had to communicate with
7-vowel speakers. And vice-versa. Were there 8-vowel speakers anywhere?
Maybe, but they would still need to speak in a seven-vowel marketplace. And
they needed to read seven-vowel bills-of-sale and letters. 
 
This seven-vowel system was a simple matter. It is amply and plainly and
widely attested. It is what we see in the NT manuscript traditions from 2nd
century and following. [As a point of contrast, the Erasmian system was not
attested anywhere in the first century. It mixes the wrong vowels together,
like EI and H instead of EI and I, or OU and U instead of OI and U. It
divides and inverts W and O. It inverts the consonants, making B, D, G
'hard', when they were soft, and makes P, T, X, soft when they where hard
and becoming soft in some places. I only mention the non-viability of the
Erasmian system as a historical system so that someone doesn't do the
following jump, 'there was a widely attested standard dialect, but there
were also minority dialects, THEREFORE Erasmian is historically justified.'
I hear that sometimes hidden between the lines in the following: "we can't
know for sure, therefore, it doesn't matter, therefore anything goes.' But
we do know what the majority PHONEMIC system was like. And fortunately, it
was very widespread.] But it only matters when we want to internalize the
language. And I would hope that that matters.
 
AIROSO
NOMEIZW OTI DEI ME GRAFIN OUTWS EI QELWI DEIKSE THN ELLHNIKHN GRAFHN.
 
Randall Buth

 

 

 

Randall Buth, PhD

Director, Biblical Language Center

www.BiblicalUlpan.org

buth at jerusalemschool.org

and Lecturer, Biblical Hebrew

Rothberg, Hebrew University

ybitan at mscc.huji.ac.il

 




More information about the B-Greek mailing list