[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: yahad ostracon (fwd)
David W. Suter
Saint Martin's College
Lacey, WA 98503
dsuter@stmartin.edu
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 13:49:27 +0200 (IST)
From: avigdor horovitz <victor@bgumail.bgu.ac.il>
To: orion@pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il
Cc: Seth L Sanders <feste@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>, orion@pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il
Subject: Re: yahad ostracon (fwd)
Dear Fred,
I was not in NO so I didn't hear Esty's presentation nor have I yet seen
the document or the questionable reading. But, I can ask What other
possible restorations are there for YXD which will make sense in the
context of the document and the historical context? The possible
restorations are YHD, YWD, YHD, YLD, YSD, Y(D, YQD, YRD, YTD. Which of
these makes sense? DO any of them come close to being acceptable
paleographically? Since nothing can be said with certainty in our field
(including this statement!), we must ask what is possible, and from the
possible, what is most likely?
Avigdor
On Mon, 9 Dec 1996, Frederick Cryer wrote:
> Sure: the writing system, which admits of a primitive glance into the
> phonology, and a better one into the grammar and syntax of the
> language. The notion that y?d/break *has* to mean *yxd* arises not
> just from a notional completion of the text beyond the break, but
> also from suppositions about the metacontext of the entire find. And
> these are suppositions of an historical, sociological, and
> theological nature, which are then used to influence the reading. I
> find this non-linguistic, and very little compelling.
>
> Fred Cryer
>