Phoenecian phonology and the S(h)afot S(h)oftim biQart-Hadasht

[Jackaloboulos]

Hello,

I was wondering about the sources upon which the Evropa Barbarorvm team drew to come up with the term "Safot Softim," to describe the government of Qart-Hadasht. Specifically, I'm trying to figure out the phonology; is it actually pronounced "Shafot Shoftim," and if so, would it be better transliterated as such?

In my relatively uneducated opinion, I would imagine that would depend on whether the leading character in the historical term was a shin (sh) or a semkh (s). Does anyone happen to know which character it was, and/or what the correct phonology--as far as modern historians and linguists have been able to reconstruct it--would be?

[Tanit]

Unfortunately the members instrumental in picking this name have had to move on with life and are no longer active on the team. Most importantly these include Kikosemmek, our Phoenician language expert, and Urnamma, the old Faction Coordinator for Carthage. They gathered their information on Phoenician language and terminology from an interview with Professor Charles Krahmalkov, an expert on Carthage and Phoenician. I admit I have never bothered to tamper with the etymology of Carthage's name in EB1 or 2, despite everything else I tamper in, due to the enormous amount of effort put into it by these members, and the direct source they used. If it were to turn out that this is incorrect in game, then it is likely an error of grave miscommunication.

[vartan]

I am sure that Carthaginian Phoenician-Punic phonology did contain both the s and the sh (written as the character š in Krahmalkov). I looked at Krahmalkov's work a few weeks ago and his dictionary contained sets of words beginning with and containing both s and sh (somebody on these forums had asked for the greeting in Phoenician-Punic). He also wrote a grammar of the language that may contain a phonology section. I haven't checked that one but will be able to get back to you on Monday on that!

Good question.

EDIT: Scratch that. I can get back to you tomorrow (Sat, 7 May 2011) actually. I didn't realize my library is open on weekends.

[Jackaloboulos]

I am sure that Carthaginian Phoenician-Punic phonology did contain both the s and the sh (written as the character š in Krahmalkov). I looked at Krahmalkov's work a few weeks ago and his dictionary contained sets of words beginning with and containing both s and sh (somebody on these forums had asked for the greeting in Phoenician-Punic). He also wrote a grammar of the language that may contain a phonology section. I haven't checked that one but will be able to get back to you on Monday on that!

Good question.

EDIT: Scratch that. I can get back to you tomorrow (Sat, 7 May 2011) actually. I didn't realize my library is open on weekends.

Thanks so much! Do you happen to know the name of the book?

EDIT: And do you mean that the dictionary includes his phonological transliterations, rather than letter-by-letter (i.e. Qart-Hadasht rather than QRTHDST)? If that's the case, I might need to check and see if my own library has a copy...

[vartan]

Thanks so much! Do you happen to know the name of the book?

EDIT: And do you mean that the dictionary includes his phonological transliterations, rather than letter-by-letter (i.e. Qart-Hadasht rather than QRTHDST)? If that's the case, I might need to check and see if my own library has a copy...
Well my library has his dictionary as well as his grammar text on Phoenician-Punic. I'll type the info below this message. Also, you shouldn't be surprised to realize that his dictionary does not include vowels. You will see things like SHLM, not Shalom. Remember the user I mentioned who asked for the greeting in Punic? I told him that since the language was part of the Semitic language family, this was not something that should surprise him. Essentially, the writing system, unless I'm mistaken gravely, did not include vowels. Languages such as Hebrew, Arabic, and Punic utilize a so-called root-and-pattern template for vowels. Don't confuse this with vowel harmony as seen in some languages (e.g., Turkish). The template determines the vowels as they fit into the jigsaw puzzle of consonant templates...I find myself hard put to explain the concept because I myself haven't studied it but superficially. If anything, compare vocabulary/etymology of anything I may find in the text to modern Hebrew and you'll probably be satisfied with the result. Anyway, the texts:

Krahmalkov, Charles R. A Phoenician-Punic Grammar. Leiden: Brill, 2001. (ISBN: 9042907703)
Krahmalkov, Charles R. Phoenician-Punic Dictionary. Leuven: Peeters, 2000. (ISBN: 9004117717)

[caaraa]

Unfortunately , and good luck
http://www.primeaffiliate.com/track/images/18.games.jpghttp://farm1.static.flickr.com/152/buddyicons/44553433@N00.jpg

[vartan]

Alright I think I've found what you're looking for. By EB's commencement in 272 BCE, Phoenician-Punic had merged the fricative sh into s by the 5th century BCE, and had merged the grapheme Š into S by the 4th. Here's the section we are concerned with:

Š: /ś/ = [s], the reflex of PWS /θ š ś/: these phonemes had early merged in Phoenician into a single bilateral fricative, hence the existence in Phoenician alphabet of a single grapheme. In Classical Phoenician, the fricative merged with simple /s/ (expressed by the grapheme S) but normally continued to be represented in the orthography by the grapheme Š; the merging is exhibited in the 5th century Phoenician spelling 'SR for etymological 'ŠR in the Esmunazor inscription from Sidon (KAI 14.1). That Phoenician did not possess [š] is confirmed by Augustine (Epis. ad Rom. inch. Exp. 13) in a word-play between the Punic numeral salus salūs (ŠLŠ "three, Trinity") and Latin salus ("salvation") that indicates that the numeral was pronounced salūs, not šalūš (Hebrew šalōš).Krahmalkov, C.R. A Phoenician-Punic Grammar.

He follows with an example of a 4th century Punic poem that illustrates the consolidation into simple s.

So basically, whether or not it was written s or sh, the Punic was pronounced with the/s/. I hope that answers your question. I was not surprised to find the texts on Phoenician alongside those on Modern Hebrew, but I'm surprised to learn that the fricative merged into the simple sibilant quite early on.

By the way, the linguist calls it a lateral groove fricative. So this isn't the central fricative sh as we know it (e.g., the first sound in English 'shoe'). The only lateral in English is the /l/ as in the first sound in 'ladder'. They are so-called laterals because the airstream is released on either or both sides of the tongue, not centrally. I looked at Wikipedia's article "Phoenician language" under the phonology section and it only mentions that linguists/scholars debate whether the š was a sh (as in 'shoe') or a s (as in 'salt'). Of course, neither of these are lateral fricatives and I don't know of any language today that uses a lateral groove fricative.

EDIT: Just came across this consonant chart. I find it much easier to follow if you can read such charts. It illustrates how the two graphemes, whether or not they were used distinctly in the writing system, were pronounced identically in spoken Phoenician. It should clear that up for ye!
http://ancientlanguages.wikia.com/wiki/Phoenician:Phonology

[Jackaloboulos]

Alright I think I've found what you're looking for. By EB's commencement in 272 BCE, Phoenician-Punic had merged the fricative sh into s by the 5th century BCE, and had merged the grapheme Š into S by the 4th. Here's the section we are concerned with:
Krahmalkov, C.R. A Phoenician-Punic Grammar.

He follows with an example of a 4th century Punic poem that illustrates the consolidation into simple s.

So basically, whether or not it was written s or sh, the Punic was pronounced with the/s/. I hope that answers your question. I was not surprised to find the texts on Phoenician alongside those on Modern Hebrew, but I'm surprised to learn that the fricative merged into the simple sibilant quite early on.

By the way, the linguist calls it a lateral groove fricative. So this isn't the central fricative sh as we know it (e.g., the first sound in English 'shoe'). The only lateral in English is the /l/ as in the first sound in 'ladder'. They are so-called laterals because the airstream is released on either or both sides of the tongue, not centrally. I looked at Wikipedia's article "Phoenician language" under the phonology section and it only mentions that linguists/scholars debate whether the š was a sh (as in 'shoe') or a s (as in 'salt'). Of course, neither of these are lateral fricatives and I don't know of any language today that uses a lateral groove fricative.

EDIT: Just came across this consonant chart. I find it much easier to follow if you can read such charts. It illustrates how the two graphemes, whether or not they were used distinctly in the writing system, were pronounced identically in spoken Phoenician. It should clear that up for ye!
http://ancientlanguages.wikia.com/wiki/Phoenician:Phonology

Thanks, Vartan! Your answer is way beyond anything I'd realistically hoped for. I guess my question's pretty much cleared up entirely...although it does seem weird that Phoenician is transliterated with š, if it doesn't correspond to that grapheme's IPA value.

[vartan]

Thanks, Vartan! Your answer is way beyond anything I'd realistically hoped for. I guess my question's pretty much cleared up entirely...although it does seem weird that Phoenician is transliterated with š, if it doesn't correspond to that grapheme's IPA value.
Your response alone indicates quite common confusion and misunderstanding and mistaking of many, many things. Transliteration. Transcription. Graphemes. Phonemes. Orthography.

Basically, if you are reading earlier Phoenician texts and you see the S with the diacritic above it (the little crescent) sometimes and sometimes without it, both are pronounced the same. The reason they are written so is because historically, those words were written with those characters because they each were pronounced differently. Also, if you look at later Phoenician texts, some have rid of the diacritic-S altogether since some started writing such that the orthography (spelling) matches the pronunciation.

Don't worry, this is not weird at all. In English, the letter 's' for instance can represent such sounds as [s] and [z]. In 'cats', the 's' sounds like [s], but in 'dogs' it sounds like [z]. Also, one sound may be represented by more than one sound (as in [s] represented by diacritic and non-diacritic S in Phoenician). So in English, the sound [k] comes up as letter 'k' in 'park', but as letter 'c' in 'cat'. Go figure.

[Jackaloboulos]

So, a related question:

Is the Qart-Hadastei office best transliterated "sophet," or "sopet?" I have seen it spelled both ways...

[vartan]

So, a related question:

Is the Qart-Hadastei office best transliterated "sophet," or "sopet?" I have seen it spelled both ways...
I'll have to go back to the texts for what the greatest scholars on the language have done, but that'll be a toughie. I'm way more busy now than when you first brought up your questions. The main issue I would guess lies in what I bolded in your quote. If you asked me, I would say the best transliteration is the one that is consistent. So if you consistently use p for [p] then that's fine. If you consistently use ph for [p] then that's fine, too (I don't see why you would, though). I've mostly seen ph used for [f] (as in English telephone). If [p] is the sound (as in Peter), where or why did you conceive of sophet?