11-28-2013, 08:12 PM
Akhi memradya,
The s sound was never lost. It's always been present in the letter semkath. There's no reason to have the shin letter serve double duty, and represent both s and sh when there's a perfectly capable semkath to represent the s sound.
That's why the shift ultimately occurred in all the Semitic languages.
If what you say is true - I would expect to find the old convention in the so called "Old Syriac" version of the nt. But we don't. Ten is still asryn, not ashryn.
Also, post all of those ten inscriptions and I'll translate them into both Peshitta Aramaic and into English. So we can see how much of a difference this supposedly is.
+Shamasha
The s sound was never lost. It's always been present in the letter semkath. There's no reason to have the shin letter serve double duty, and represent both s and sh when there's a perfectly capable semkath to represent the s sound.
That's why the shift ultimately occurred in all the Semitic languages.
If what you say is true - I would expect to find the old convention in the so called "Old Syriac" version of the nt. But we don't. Ten is still asryn, not ashryn.
Also, post all of those ten inscriptions and I'll translate them into both Peshitta Aramaic and into English. So we can see how much of a difference this supposedly is.
+Shamasha