Talk:Proto-Sinaitic script/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Synopsis
The "Synopsis" table has no dates nor refereces/documentation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:85F:F89A:2C02:EEB0:B82A:7DEF:3BC8 (talk) 17:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, the whole references section is a mess. We have all the references, but they are all being clumped together into [37].
- Simons (2011)
- Goldwasser (2010)
- Albright (1966)
- Lundin (1987)
- Colless (2010)
- 72.216.186.113 (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- As for dates, there are ~40 inscriptions. To get an accurate date range of usage for each letter, someone would have to collect which letters appear in which inscriptions, and have each inscription dated. I think that is out-of-scope for a synopsis. 72.216.186.113 (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- Albright (1966) and Colless (2010) are now decoupled from [37]. Wow, that took a lot more time than I thought it would. But hopefully it's for the better. 72.216.186.113 (talk) 07:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Which sound is referred to by the s with over-dot (ṡ) in ṡamk at samekh?.
which transliteration system was used there -- dont imply different ones in a single article without purpose/stating of doing so
the only thing with my limited institutional access i could find in the internet, is by Shehadeh (1987) which i cant access as full text, in which ṡ is used for the merger of s1 and s3 of the Leslau-system (i.e. *š "shin" and *s "samekh"). if the author of that table is refering to this notation, then it should be removed as this script obviously does not exhibit this merging.
elsewise: what's the meaning of it?? satiate my curiosity before i perish :D
Hyperbaton (talk) 08:49, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Don't know. Should be a sharp "s". Debresser (talk) 11:14, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
- it looks like it was the notation used by Albright (1966). In later scholarship by Colless (2010), the over-dot was removed. 72.216.186.113 (talk) 17:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
So, may i change it to "s", or shall i leave it as ambiguous as it is (by Shehadehs definition) since linguists are not unanimous to what "Shin" vs "Samekh" sound values were
(i.e. same situation as with PIE or better said its descendants like OHGerman or some Romance Languages as you can observe with certain varieties of Spanish or Portuguese:
- original sole sibilant being somewhat retracted, e.g. apico-alveolar [s̺],
- while sound shifts introduced a further "normal" i.e. nowadays all around the world common dental [s̪] from certain earlier instanced of /t/ by affrication to /t͡s/ (or even a original phoneme regardless) via later ongoing deaffrication; both sibilants coexisting and contrasting,
... due to push-effects their distinguishability increased by the newly introduced [s̪] pushing the older [s̺]'s already hushing sound quality to something like [ʃ] ... as we can observe in German, preserved before stops, e.g. stone vs stein [ʃtain] , but salt vs salz [salt͡s] -- note here the affrication of the final /t/ too.
confer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiceless_alveolar_fricative#Voiceless_apico-alveolar_sibilant)
In the latter case of reflecting this "uncertain" /s/ phoneme, may i change every such "s" of the reconstructed names into bearing ṡ ?
Hyperbaton (talk) 08:49, 20 December 2020 (UTC)