Was there ever a J sound in Hebrew?

nope, it was all a phonetics argument. different languages using the same sets of sounds.

---

norse languages are separate--but . . .never mind.This weekend I am defintely going to go back to westminster to scan the picture of the chart, unless I manage to find one on the web.cool that you're dad's fluent in old english. I'm fluent in modern swedish (or whatever you want to call it).
well, I should hope that I am, seeing as how I'm half swedish, but . . .kind of a crummy graph
http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/ballc/oe/oe-ie.html
another slightly difficult chart
http://softrat.home.mindspring.com/germanic.html
this one's easier to read
http://www.andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/language.html
and here's the chart I was gonna scan
http://www.bartleby.com/61/indoeuro.htmlof all these, the only one I do know to be at least somewhat factual and up to date is the american heritage one.
however, the rest show the same thing.
OE is from the west germanic branch of the germanic families. norse is from the north germanic branch.
closely related, yes, but not as close as you implied. (or perhaps thought).Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

um, ok.anyways, back on topic now

Arachnophilia,There was a consonant phoneme Jeud in the Ancient Hebrew, for the phonemes from all principal languages were a consequence from the mixing of the sounds that already existed in the first and perfect Hebrew Language.It’s been a complete Language, not created by man to Adam’s descendents, but originated from JEHAVEH Who first spoke the phonemes of a perfect Hebrew Language in the Garden of Eden, even before it was mixed up. To confound the Language does not mean to cause the phonemes to disappear, but to cause disorder in the original order of the sounds. The consonant phonemes that resulted from the confounding of the first Language did not proceed from nothing, but derived from the mixing of the consonant sounds of the same Ancient Hebrew Language.-1st. - Is there proof that to mix up or to confound the Language does not mean to cause disorder in the original order of the phonemes?2nd. - Is there evidence that the major part of the principal languages which derived from the mixing of a first and complete Ancient Hebrew Language did not abide any phoneme similar to the J sound as it is spoken in either French, Italian or English?-
Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : feel like editing something

If the sounds from the major languages did originate from one language, as scripture says, and that one language ended up being mixed up, then it is safe to say that the J sound was already in that first language.

It is said in the Scriptures that the name of the LAMB will be called Marvelous, Amazing, and Bearer of Eternity. An Amazing and Marvelous name is the one that abides the FULLNESS, the COMPLETENESS and not just vocalic sounds from what the scribes call semi-vowel phonemes.As it was quoted before,For the sake of my Name I did what keeps it from being polluted by the abominations/faiths/beliefs of the earth. I AM [JEHAVEH] who makes known the KADHISH [HOLINESS] of my Name.Once it is said ”I AM who makes known my Name’, the understanding is given that it is not up to theology and today’s scribes to make known the pronunciation of the Name that remains eternally.If one understands that the Eternal and Celestial has separated, sealed and kept the original pronunciation of the Ancient Hebrew Tetragram from being polluted by religion and today’s scribes,soon it can be viewed that the stubborness from the intention of sanctifying the vocalic Y sound from the Modern Hebrew as if it were eternal, only helps to keep the treasure even more hidden..

Sorry but there is no evidence biblical or otherwise that god spoke hebrew in any form
this may help you though http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/1_faqs.html#name1the fact is hebrew is a language derived from pro-semitic with lots of changes
language shows that there was never one language,people just thought thiers was the first there isn't any evidence of this, if the language shows no sign of a consenint anywhere in any other related languages then i doubt it ever existed

please see Message 9

Hi kuresu,besides the above reason, there is also the fact that the abomination--belief that causes desolation would have to be viewed standing where it ought not, in a holy place--or true scripture, like a proof that not only a J sound would have to be omitted for a time, but the eternal instructions too.Matthew Paraphrased --Instruction to not call upon the eternal name in vainIn the time that you call on, the calling shall not be in the likeness of what is done by religion and beliefs of the earth, for they love to perform model-prayers standing in the houses and on the street corners to be seen by people.I assure you: They've got the --type of-- hearers they were seeking for.In the time that you call upon, go into your private places, shut the gates --of the property, farm or hill--, and call upon Jehaveh secretly, and Jehaveh who sees you in secret will hear you.For, when you call upon Jehaveh, you shall not do it according to a sameness of style nor model-prayers like the religious ones,
since they believe they'll be heard for the sameness of words and prayers.You shall not do anything like them,
because Jehaveh knows your thoughts and what you need before you ask. This way --by doing this-- you shall call upon directly --for the presence of-- Jehaveh that shines in heaven, for this reason: lef - In order for the pronunciation of the eternal name to be regarded in a separate way --in holiness-, Bet - and the kingdom of heaven comes to you --literally--. Gmel - Because --by calling upon to speak before the presence of Jehaveh that shines in heaven--, you become the purpose of Jehaveh on earth as it is in heaven, Dálet - so that your bread is not like the daily one, but the one that is given immediatelly, H - for --in virtue of this-- you know that your debts have been forgiven, in the same manner that you, being present, forgive your debtors; Vav - in doing so you are kept from being tempted to work up an abomination --belief or credere--, Záyin - for not one evil --or spiritual darkness-- can come to you, --in virtue of the excellent presence of Jehaveh's Light-- for all heaven and kingdom and power belongs to Jehaveh in the continuous times and in the times that remain eternally.Amen = Aemonáh - which means: that the text transcription was done with Emunah - Transcribed with fidelitate--fidelity. When it comes to adulterated versions of new testament, The Message puts to light what the primary adulterated versions have been keeping in the obscure, because The Message does place the dragon --that was in Pergamus-- into dry land, and reveals how dualist the adulterated primary version, from the Romanesque Mother prostitute church, was....in heaven,
1 - Reveal who you are.
2 - Set the world right;
3 - Do what's best” as above, so below.
4 - Keep us alive with three square meals.
5 - Keep us forgiven with you and forgiving others.
6 - Keep us safe from ourselves and the [Dragon].
7 - You're in charge! You can do anything you want! You're ablaze in beauty! Yes. Yes. Yes.Since the dragon or old-style serpent was made to be a beast of the field and does not have authority over itself, then it makes no sense to refer to the dragon or beast or any creature as if there would be one, other than YHWH, that would have power or command over the evil.Dualism or dualist doctrine is the belief that there would be two in command, one over the good and another over the evil.According to the Law and the Testimony, the beasts are sent wherever the Superior Being sends them to go and perform their function, and not one type of beast, --whether a living creature or having unclean spirit that make signs and wonders as the scarlet beast does--, can have authority over itself. Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : lightblue

Before I became a computer geek, I was a language geek majoring in German.The Germanic language family was split into three sub-families:
1. West Germanic -- English, German, Dutch
2. North Germanic -- Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, Icelandic
3. East Germanic -- Gothic (extinct)During the Vlkerwanderung (migration of the peoples, ie of the Germanic tribes at the end of the Roman Empire), the Angles and Saxons migrated to Britain from regions in the north of Germany around Schleswig-Holstein. There were also Norse settlements towards the north-eastern part of Britain around the city of York (formerly named Jorvik) by the Jutes, also identified as Danes. While Old English was primarily the West Germanic language of the Angles and Saxons, close contact with the Danes caused some North Germanic characteristics to be absorbed into the language -- as I recall, especially the dropping of inflected endings (ie, the use of special endings to indicate case; refer to Latin, Greek, Russian, or German for examples of inflected languages, though German has delegated most case endings to the definite and indefinite articles and to attributive adjectives).In the meantime, the Norse invaded and settled in the north of France in Normandy. Though there they took local wives who raised their children speaking French, thus assimilating the Norse linguistically. Then in 1066 William conquered Britain and imposed French upon us, such that English is strongly West Germanic in structure (especially in the verb system and in the construction of compound nouns) and strongly French in vocabulary -- I've read that only about 25% of English vocabulary is derived from Anglo-Saxon.I took a one semester class in Old English back in 1976. Of course, my background in German helped me a lot. Plus, it cleared up a number of questions I had had about where certain English forms came from and how they were related to German.PS
A couple decades ago there was a series on PBS, "The Story of English", which traced the history and development of the language. That was where I heard about the Danish influence on Anglo-Saxon. There was a companion book to the series which may give more information.Edited by dwise1, : the PSEdited by dwise1, : Edited by dwise1, :

It does appear that the split between West Germanic and North Germanic occurred not too long before the Anglo-Saxon period. Once one is familiar with Old English, Old Norse isn't too hard. At least I was able to read a few passages in Old Norse with a little knowledge of Old English. Sort of like reading Chaucer with a knowledge of Modern English.- Actually, that is a bit of an oversimplification. William imposed French on no one; if he did, then we would be speaking a Romance language with some German vocabulary. True, the language of the Court and the nobility were French, but the people remained Anglo-Saxon -- remember, it wasn't uncommon for the rulers and the peasants to speak different languages. (Heck, even in the 18th century, George I barely knew any English.) Direct communication between the lord and the peasants was not considered a necessity. And, if it was needed, it was easier to learn English yourself (or hire a translator) than to force the mass of people, in an era without formal education or mass communication, to learn French.What happened was that a segment of the people were effectively bilingual -- the next generations of the nobility eventually learned English (from their nurses if no where else), and probably the wealthier of the freemen and merchants learned French for practical reasons. So you had a large segment of people who were basically native English speakers with a second language from which to draw additional vocabulary as needed for new ideas or to put a finer point on older ideas.Added by edit:By the way, I've been meaning for a long time to learn more about the Proto-Indo-Europeans, and I just ordered and received my copy of Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction by Benjamin W. Fortson IV. So I am soon to become an even more annoying fount of useless trivia.Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.Edited by Chiroptera, : Changed subtitle.

---

In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)

Yes, I had oversimplified that somewhat. And chose the wrong verb; instead of "imposed" I believe I should have said "inflicted".

quote:

---

"English is the results of the efforts of Norman men-at-arms to make dates with Saxon barmaids in the 9th century"
(H. Beam Piper, from "Fuzzy Sapiens")

---

Part of the consequences of the process that you had elaborated more upon than I is that we have at least two words for the same things, the "ten cent" less refined term which is usually from Anglo-Saxon and the "two dollar" fancier term which is usually from the French. Also, I had gathered from somewhere a comparison of the size of the vocabularies of a few modern languages, which unfortunately I cannot find at the moment. However, it showed German, French, and Spanish as having about the same size vocabularies, give or take a few thousand words, whereas English's vocabulary was between 2 to 3 times as great.

quote:

---

"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
(James D. Nicoll)

---

PS
Family story to illustrate "ten cent" words vs "two dollar" words. "chew" is Anglo-Saxon whereas "masticate" is Romance; in Spanish it's "masticar", which is the common verb. When my mother-in-law, a native speaker of Spanish, was taking an English composition class, her teacher had to keep telling her to not use so many "two dollar" works, but rather to use the more common synonyms instead. But for her, "masticate" was the common word and "chew" was uncommon.PPS
Here are the figures. When I used to drive down to San Diego for duty, on the way back late Sunday afternoons I would listen to a linguistics radio show on KPBS hosted by two local university professors, one of them being Richard Lederer. I jotted these figures for vocabulary size down as he gave them over the air:

quote:

---

Vocabulary Sizes:
English 616,000
German 185,000
Russian 130,000
French 100,000
English adds about 5000 new words per annum
about 25% of English vocab comes from "Anglish"

---

Edited by dwise1, : PSEdited by dwise1, : PPS

I thought this might be the root of your question about a J sound in ancient Hebrew. I resently heard the explaination of the 'name'. The first part of this mistery starts in the fact that paleo-hebrew and even early forms of modern hebrew is a language that is written in all consonants [i.e. no vowels where written down] {an example using english would be: N TH BGNNG GD CRTD TH HVNS ND TH RTH.} However because people began mispronouncing the words, vowel marks where introduced and where placed under the consonants as jots and tiddles. In the Jewish/Hebrew religion the name YHVH [YHWH] in considered the Holy name of God and it is/was taboo to speak this name out loud. So even when they wrote down the word of God whenever they wrote the word YHVH [YHWH] they put the vowels sounds for Elohym under YHVH [YHWH] this resulted (at a later date during translation from Hebrew to english) in the creation of a new name for God, Yehaveh, Jehaveh or Jahovah. Edited by imageinvisible, : added in qs box

-------Evidence of a J sound in Ancient Hebrew Language consists in the fact that to mix the sound of the phonemes doesn’t mean to exterminate them; therefore, to confound the Language does not mean causing the sounds to disappear, but causing a change in the original order of the phonemes, altering the form that they are expressed. For this reason it has been proved the existence of a consonant J sound in the first and perfect Hebrew Language spoken by the descendence of Adam and Eva (Eve): Because when seeing that the sounds or phonemes of the new Languages did not derive from nothing but from a unique Language, then one ascertains that the consonant J sound that had always been present in the new Languages also did not derive from nothing but was a part of a row of sounds: the same volume of consonant phonemes that were mixed from the consonant sounds of a unique Language, first and perfect Hebrew Language.-------Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : updating