1. The WordReference Forums have moved to new forum software. (Details)

Is the Hebrew-Welsh connection more than a myth?

Discussion in 'Etymology, History of languages and Linguistics (EHL)' started by Roel~, Jan 27, 2013.

  1. Roel~ Junior Member

    Nederlands - Nederland
    I read about a supposed connection between Hebrew and Welsh. It looks like a myth from Christians, but when I listened to Gaelic, it very much reminded me of Hebrew, of which I know the sounds very well too. Certain things which were said, were said in a similar way as they were said in Hebrew. The thing is that Gaelic is an Indo-European languages and that Hebrew is an Afro-Semitic language. So, how could they even be related? Well, it's possible for languages to undergo such a big influence of other languages that their language group can change, a good example is Japanese, which is an isolated language. Where as it might possible have been part of the Altaic group at first, it might have merged with other languages in the area so much that it became an isolated language, which it officially is. Though, it's just a theory and linguists aren't sure if Japanese has been part of the Altaic group, some linguists even classify Japanese under the Altaic language group. The point is, Japanese became an isolated language, which shows that languages evolve.

    It might be possible that Gaelic and the other celtic languages were once part of the Afro-Semitic group, but underwent such a big influence of European languages that they became Indo-European, well, the Indo-European classification. Although you wouldn't expect it, there seems to be support for this theory. What I could find is the following, and it would be good if people here were able to verify this information. In the information, it is claimed that the Irish are one of the lost tribes of Israel, although I 'm interested in Hebrew because of it's special position as an Afro-Semitic language which is revived, I 'm agnostic and I don't know enough about christianity to say anything about this.

    Source: http://britam.org/language.html

    A writer who signed his name "Glas" submitted a list of Welsh words with Hebrew origins in 1832 . The writer remarked that, "But the best proof of the Eastern descent of the ancient British is the close resemblance and connection existing between the Welsh and Hebrew languages, even at this day. As a proof of this we have extracted the following vocabulary of words in both tongues, so closely resembling each other in sound and sense as to leave no doubt whatever on the subject.
    Many of these words, it will be found, have been transmitted from the Welsh, through the Anglo-Saxon into our modern English. It would be easy to swell their number..

    Some of the examples adduced by the above writer were:

    Aeth: He went, he is gone; hence = Athah
    Aml: Plentiful, ample = Hamale
    Ydom: the earth = Adamah
    Awye: air, sky = auor, or
    bu: it came to pass = bo boten, or potten : belly = beten.
    brith: bright = barud
    cas: hatred = caas (anger).
    dafnu: to drop, or distill by drops = nataph, taph.



    In 1675 Charles Edwards ("Hanes y Fydd") published A number of Welsh Cambro-Brittanic Hebraisms in which he shows that whole phrases in Welsh can be closely paralleled by whole phrases in Hebrew.

    From the list of Charles Edwards, L.G.A. Roberts (1919) made a selection and we have selected examples from Roberts after slightly modernising the Hebrew transliterations : It should be noted that when account is taken for likely and known dialectical changes of pronounciation the examples given in effect show identical Welsh parallel phrases for the Hebrew original.

    In Welsh: Gael hedd (Gen.31;47) meaning Geledd i.e. heap of testimony= in Hebrew : Galaed.

    In Welsh: Bagad meaning "A troop cometh ?" (Gen.30;11) = in Hebrew

    In Welsh : Anudon meaning "Without God" = in Hebrew: Aen Adon.

    In Welsh : Yni all sy dda meaning "I am the Almighty God" (Gen. 17;1) = in Hebrew: Ani El Saddai.

    In Welsh : Llai iachu yngwyddd achau ni meaning "Let him not live before our brethren" (Gen. 31;32) = in Hebrew Loa yichei neged acheinu (Gen.31;32).

    In Welsh Ochoren ballodddi hoc-dena meaning "After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure?" = in Hebrew : Acharei belothi hedenah (Gen.18;12).

    In Welsh Bebroch fra am beneu ach ef, dyfet Deborah mam ianceth Ribecah meaning "When he fled from the face of his brother . But Deborah Rebecca's nurse died" (Gen. 35;7-8) = in Hebrew : Beborcho mpnei achiv vetamath Deborah mayneceth Ribecah.

    In Welsh: Yngan Job yscoli yscoli cynghaws i (Job 6;1,2) meaning "Job answered, O that my grief were thoroughly weighed" = in Hebrew: Veya(g)n Eyub ....shocol yishocal ca(g)si

    In Welsh: Amelhau bytheu chwi a bythau holl ufyddau chwi meaning "And they shall fill your house and the houses of all your servants" (Gen. 10;6) = in Hebrew: Umalu bathechoh and bathei col avedochoh.

    In Welsh Iachadd ni meaning "Thou hast healed me" = in Hebrew: hechiyatni.

    In Welsh Nesa awyr peneu chwi meaning "Lif thou up the light of thy countenance" = in Hebrew: nasa aor panechoh.(Psalms 4;6.).

    In Welsh An annos meaning "None did compel" = in Hebrew: ain ones. (Esther 1;8).

    In Welsh As chwimwth meaning "an angry man" = in Hebrew: ish chamas (Psalms 140;12 Proverbs 16;29 meaning a wickedly-violent man).

    In Welsh Be heulo, luerferfo (Job 6;4) meaning "When his candle shined ..... and by his light.." = in Hebrew: behilo, leoroe.

    In Welsh Bwgythieu in gwarchaeni (Job 6;4) meaning "The terrors of God set themselves in array against me = in Hebrew: Biu(g)thi elohai ya-a(g)rchuni.

    In Welsh I far meaning "Shall be cursed" = Hebrew : Yu-ar, yuv-ar. (Numbers 22;6).

    In Welsh Am geryddo fo meaning "At his reproof" = in Hebrew :im ge-arato.



    Of course, I tried to verify this information. This is hard, because this is medieval Gaelic, but in the development from a medieval to a modern language, there are still words who are similar or remained

    Reproof = cerydd, in modern Welsh. This seems related to geryddo and this means that it might be possible that it isn't made up.

    Hast healed = iachaodd Medieval Welsh = Iachadd

    I used a dictionary to try and look and I did this just to look if this was nonsense or not, but now I wonder if there is any truth in this theory, because the grammar looks similar too.

    Is there anyone here who knows anything about this and is able to verify this, because this would shed a new light onto these languages.
     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2013
  2. Pedro y La Torre

    Pedro y La Torre Senior Member

    Paris, France
    English (Ireland)
    As far as I am aware, there is no linguistic proof whatever to support the contention that Hebrew and Welsh (or any other Celtic language) are directly related. Welsh is not ''medieval Gaelic'', it is from another branch of the Celtic languages entirely. Modern Scottish and Irish Gaelic are not intelligible to a Welsh speaker.
    There are a number of loons who claim that the ''British'', or ''Scots'' or even ''Ulster Protestants'' are one of the lost twelve tribes of Israel, but these people are usually harmless eccentrics, or locked firmly away in mental institutions.
     
  3. Roel~ Junior Member

    Nederlands - Nederland
    No, I am aware that there isn't any hard evidence for this, but when I looked through these sites and checked if the words were similar in Welsh, which actually surprises me is that some words are quite similar to what is written there. If it was all nonsense and made up, there should be like 1 match because of coincidence, but there can be more matches found and they still look a lot like the words written here. Besides, like I wrote earlier, I watched a Welsh documentary partly, and when I listened to the English it sounded much like the way Israelies talk, that's why I wonder if this might be true and not just a myth.
     
  4. Hulalessar Senior Member

    Andalucía
    English - England
  5. arielipi Senior Member

    Israel
    Hebrew
    After listening to eluviete singing in Gaelic, there's no connection as far as I see.
     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2013
  6. Ben Jamin Senior Member

    Norway
    Polish
    Superficial similarities between unrelated languages are usually accidental. The Celtic languages have undergone tremendous phonetic and grammatical changes during the last 2000 years, becoming completely unrecognizable for an ancient speaker. To prove a relation you would have to show how the words evolved from an ancient form to present, fo instance which part in Anudon means 'god'. By the way 'adonai' in Hebrew means actually 'lord', not 'god'.
     
  7. arielipi Senior Member

    Israel
    Hebrew
    No, it does also mean god.
     
  8. tFighterPilot Senior Member

    Israel - Hebrew
  9. Pedro y La Torre

    Pedro y La Torre Senior Member

    Paris, France
    English (Ireland)
    Welsh sounds nothing like Hebrew (to me). The instances you have cited above look like mere coincidence; I'm sure I could find a similar list for almost any two Indo-European languages.
    Greek sounds very close to European Spanish to my ears, but the two languages have little or nothing in common.

    Appearances can be deceiving.
     
  10. Abu Rashid

    Abu Rashid Senior Member

    Melbourne, Australia
    Australian English
    It may be used to refer to god as a title, but the word itself means lord.
     
  11. Abu Rashid

    Abu Rashid Senior Member

    Melbourne, Australia
    Australian English
    Modern Israeli Hebrew is largely a revived language, and was revived by speakers of European languages. That's probably why it sounds very similar to some European languages. To me it sounds very French. If ancient Hebrew had in fact arrived in north western Europe, it would've sounded very different to the modern revived Hebrew.
     
  12. arielipi Senior Member

    Israel
    Hebrew
    This is not some english language you provide titles. Hebrew is very dense, and adonay is another name for god just as many other names.
     
  13. Abu Rashid

    Abu Rashid Senior Member

    Melbourne, Australia
    Australian English
    Yes I'm well aware of the usage as a replacement for ha-shem, that doesn't change the meaning, which is still lord, and not just in Hebrew but in Ugaritic & Phoenician too.

    All languages are "dense", if by that you mean thick with various meanings and intricacies of usage, Hebrew is no more significant in this respect than any other language.
     
  14. arielipi Senior Member

    Israel
    Hebrew
    Its meaning is lord that is true, but its not a title to god, its another word for god.
     
  15. Abu Rashid

    Abu Rashid Senior Member

    Melbourne, Australia
    Australian English
    So you mean to say it's a word that has another meaning, but which is used to refer to god?
     
  16. arielipi Senior Member

    Israel
    Hebrew
    Yes. 10 chars.
     
  17. Abu Rashid

    Abu Rashid Senior Member

    Melbourne, Australia
    Australian English
    Ok, thanks.
     
  18. Ben Jamin Senior Member

    Norway
    Polish
    Only in the way as 'Lord' or 'our Lord' in English means 'God' (see Wikipedia for Adonai).
     
  19. Roel~ Junior Member

    Nederlands - Nederland
    Let me put on this documentary again. When I listen to the rhythm of the Gaelic language, it's similar to the rhythm of Hebrew. Of course you are right, I know Spanish and I know some basic things of New-Greek, so I know that they are completely different languages. Though, they both were influenced by languages from the south, so this could be an explanation for the similar sounds, I don't know this though. Though, although similar words aren't a good method to find out if languages are familiar, because it could be coincidence, this is of course not the only reason in the case of Hebrew and Gaelic.

    The grammar is very similar and doesn't correspond to the grammar of most European languages, it has more similarities with the grammar of Afro-Asiatic languages. Besides, I know that there are theories that the Celts came from North-Africa and moved from Spain to the north. Actually, there can be still some Celtic culture found in Spain, so I don't think that it's impossible that the Celtic languages at least have had some connection with the Afro-Asiatic languages in the past and that they were so much influenced by Indo-European languages that they lost a lot of traits from Afro-Asiatic languages and adapted so much to the traits of Europeans languages that they became all Indo-European languages. The VSO word order corresponds to the Afro-Asiatic languages.

    One of the best supports for this theory seem to be writing from church fathers from the medieval times, in which they write that the Gaelic languages are very much like Hebrew. Those people knew Hebrew very well so they should be capable to judge this. The disadvantage though is that their faith may influence their opinions and make them do these claims because they want it to be true.
     
  20. clevermizo Moderator

    St. Louis, MO
    English (USA), Spanish
    Why just 1 match? What is the actual statistical probability of finding such coincidences? What if it were 25 matches?

    Also, if I chose to transliterate your Hebrew words and phrases above into Latin characters slightly differently, the 'similarities' would mostly disappear to maybe just 1 or 2. The transliteration method used seems a little strange to me - it looks as though it is trying to exaggerate similarities between the two. Also there's no correspondence between any of the phrases even though they look similar. For example:

    In Hebrew this is:
    (in 35:7) בְּבָרְחוֹ, מִפְּנֵי אָחִיו bəvorkho mi-pnei akhiv
    (in 35:8) וַתָּמָת דְּבֹרָה מֵינֶקֶת רִבְקָה va-tamat dəvora meineket rivka

    Mind you this is using modern Hebrew pronunciation. Still there is poor concordance between words. For example, "dyfet" I assume is Welsh for "died". In Hebrew this is va-tamat (which entirely means "and she died"). Also, "akhiv" is Hebrew for "his brother" but this I assure you is not what "ach ef" means in Welsh. Actually, I don't see the Welsh word for brother (Brawd) but maybe a different word is being used. Still it all makes me suspicious. If I use Tiberian Hebrew pronunciation this further erodes similarities in pronunciation:

    (in 35:7) בְּבָרְחוֹ, מִפְּנֵי אָחִיו: bə-vɔrħo mɪ-pənei ɔħiw
    (in 35:8) וַתָּמָת דְּבֹרָה מֵינֶקֶת רִבְקָה: wa-tɔmɔθ dəvorɔ meinɛqɛθ rivqɔ

    Now I bothered to look up what the phrases are in the Welsh Bible because some folks will take whatever appears as truth without questioning. From the Welsh Bible:

    (in 35:7) Duw wedi ymddangos iddo pan oedd yn dianc oddi wrth ei frawd Esau.
    (in 35:8) A dyma Debora (sef y forwyn oedd wedi magu Rebeca pan oedd hi'n ferch fach) yn marw yno.

    I don't know Welsh, but this appears more modern and less literal as it is quite longer than the Hebrew. As you quote, dialects and pronunciations may have changed. An older version from 1588 looks closer to the Hebrew syntax and is probably what anyone in 1675 would have been consulting.

    (in 35:7) Duw iddo ef, pan ffoase efe o wydd ei frawd
    (in 35:8) A marwa a wnaeth Debora mammaeth Rebecca

    If you go back and double check every one of those verses in a Welsh bible, old or new, I bet most of them don't concord. Given this information, I can see no similarities. In short, it's a bunch of nonsense.

    How are the grammars of Welsh and Hebrew similar? How does the grammar of Welsh not correspond to the grammar of most European languages? A quick look on Wikipedia Welsh article and the articles on colloquial Welsh and literary Welsh morphology show some unique features and most of the rest run of the mill Indo-European features. -st for the second person? Check. TV distinction? Check. Verb to be in the present tense? Check.

    Instead of trying to show how similar Welsh is to Hebrew, how about we should how Indo-European it is and see which list is bigger?
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2013
  21. arielipi Senior Member

    Israel
    Hebrew
    Actually, this is taken exactly as is from the bible clevermizo. We dont have all constants from the bible now, but we speak other than that the same way.
     
  22. Hulalessar Senior Member

    Andalucía
    English - England
    That it surely the key. No comparative linguist doubts that the Celtic languages are Indo-European. A much more reasonable hypothesis (on which linguists do not all agree) is that the Italic and Celtic languages have an immediate common ancestor.

    At one time Celtic languages were spoken over large areas of Europe and in Asia Minor. The possibility of contact between Celtic speaking peoples and Semitic speaking peoples cannot be ruled out and was indeed likely in some areas. That raises the possibility of Semitic languages having had some influence on some Celtic languages. However, it is all too easy to propose virtually any language as a substrate for another and point to a feature or two that demonstrates your theory. Regrettably nationalistic and religious beliefs influence linguistic theories. I read recently about a Dutch scholar who after careful study concluded that Dutch was the language spoken in the Garden of Eden. For theories about the lost tribes of Israel see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Lost_Tribes

    An interesting test would be to compare, say, Icelandic, Serbian and Albanian, not to mention Quechua, Japanese and Zulu, with Hebrew to see if similar apparent influences can be found. If they are, then that would effectively explain that any resemblances between Hebrew and Welsh are merely coincidental.

    The human brain is programmed to recognise patterns and the problem is that sometimes it sees patterns where none exist and especially if you want to find them. My school magazine had an article which showed that the works of Shakespeare were written by Rodgers and Hammerstein.
     
  23. Abu Rashid

    Abu Rashid Senior Member

    Melbourne, Australia
    Australian English
    If you do that, they'll probably then just tell you that's because Hebrew is the original language and all other languages are derived from it.
     
  24. Ben Jamin Senior Member

    Norway
    Polish
    The less you know two foreign languages the bigger is the chance that yoy find them similar in sound. Most English speakers won't be able to distinguish between Mandarin and Vietamese if they haven't learned any of them, or at least haven't extensively and carefully listened to them. For a Chinese speaker it might be equally difficult to hear difference between Spanish and Italian. If you are well familiar with a language you'll hear a difference even between so closely related languages as Swedish and Norwegian after hearing only one word.
     
  25. Stoggler

    Stoggler Senior Member

    Kingdom of Sussex
    UK English
    Are you talking about Gaelic or about Welsh? They are NOT the same language.
     
  26. arielipi Senior Member

    Israel
    Hebrew
    @Benjamin, your argument is invalid, he didnt take 2 languages from the same family, but 2 languages from different families. Its not like taking English and French, its like taking English and Arabic.
     
  27. xari Junior Member

    portuguese
  28. clevermizo Moderator

    St. Louis, MO
    English (USA), Spanish
    What? I was showing that the Welsh quoted is inaccurate, not the Hebrew. I don't understand your comment.

    That's a fantastic site; thanks for sharing!
     
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2013
  29. fdb Senior Member

    Cambridge, UK
    French (France)
    http://www.zompist.com/chance.htm

    I agree, this is a splendid piece of work. We must keep it on file for the next time some crank wants to prove the affinity of two unrelated languages. I am sure it will be soon.
     
  30. arielipi Senior Member

    Israel
    Hebrew
    @clevermizo your transliteration of hebrew is wrong there.
     
  31. clevermizo Moderator

    St. Louis, MO
    English (USA), Spanish
    Then please properly quote the mistake and correct it. Certainly you don't think "Beborcho mpnei achiv vetamath Deborah mayneceth Ribecah" is accurate transliteration, but if something is wrong with "rivka", for example, in my transliteration, or if you pronounce 'th', this would be interesting to note.

    Aside that, let's not get off-topic. I think we can all agree that if we change our transliteration scheme slightly, we can artificially make the two languages more similar on paper than they truly are. If I write "mayneceth" instead of "meineket" for מֵינֶ֣קֶת, it artificially looks like it has more in common with some supposed Welsh "mam ianceth" than it really does. When coupled with the fact that 'mam ianceth' isn't even found in Welsh translations of the Bible in this verse really knocks the whole thing out of the water.
     
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2013
  32. arielipi Senior Member

    Israel
    Hebrew
    No, you should transliterate it as it should be to get accurate comparison, thus true conclusion can be made.
     
  33. Ben Jamin Senior Member

    Norway
    Polish
    Are you joking?
     
  34. arielipi Senior Member

    Israel
    Hebrew
    No, that was on the second part of your comment. I may correct your mistakes, but i have exams now so not currently. Ill just say theres a difference between v and b, and many more mistakes of those, such as ba instead of be, etc. you get the point.
     
  35. Ben Jamin Senior Member

    Norway
    Polish
    It was not I that made the transliteration, but I was wondering that you may be were ironic towards Roel's theories, because what you actually propose is a manipulation to make words look more alike. In serious etymologic research one must find out how the word in the source language was pronounced rather than written (in older times words were spread mostly orally) at the time it should presumably be adopted into the target language, and then (using laws of phonetic changes) show how the word came to be pronounced the way it does now.
    Actually most cognate words in distantly related languages are not similar in sound at all. Take for example Latin 'pater' and Armenian 'hayr', or Slavic 'bog' and Greek 'phagein', and they more often than not have different meaning.

    By the way, it is not transliteration that is the correct way to examine words but phonetic transcription.
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2013
  36. berndf Moderator

    Geneva
    German (Germany)
    If we examine a possible Semitic substratum hypothesis in Celtic languages, we have of course to do the comparison with the development stage of the language when this influence should allegedly have take place. Allophonic distribution of beth and veth in the 8th century AD, the time when the Masoretic punctuation system was finalized, is not necessarily relevant. After all we know, allophonic spirantization of plosives (beth-vet, gimel-ghimel, daleth-dhaleth, koph-khoph, peh-pheh, taw-thaw) happened in post-exile times and would probably not be relevant. But for that we would need a more precise theory of how, where and when the influence should have taken place.

    It should also be noted that fantasies of nutters like those Brit-Am people based on amateurish 17th centuries comparisons long before the methodology of historical comparative was developed, can hardly be taken seriously. Modern attempts to unveil an alleged Semitic substratum in Celtic languages, notably the works of Vennemann (see the link provided by Hulalessar in #4), postulate Semitic influence on Celtic to have taken place via Punic and not via Hebrew. Both are Canaanitic languages but Punic never developed the beth-veth distinction.
     
  37. arielipi Senior Member

    Israel
    Hebrew
    Well youre probably right benjamin, what i meant in transliteration is - take the word as it is said in hebrew, copy it exactly the same to english:
    בברחו מפני אחיו
    bevorkho mipney akhiv is the right "transliteration" for example.
     
  38. berndf Moderator

    Geneva
    German (Germany)
    What is your basis for calling it "correct". Your transliteration is modern (not Biblical, not even Masoretic) and that can hardly be relevant in this context.
     
  39. Ben Jamin Senior Member

    Norway
    Polish
    I don't know Hebrew (or Ivrit), but established transliteration of many langauges into English is often confusing. Take for example Russian. The English transliteration of Russian gives almost no hint about correct pronunciation of many words, for instance transliteration 'ee' for "её" (pronounced /jɛjɔ/ [yeyo]).

    I have also read that transliteration of Thai script to Latin letters gives results that give almost no information about actual pronunciation.
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2013
  40. arielipi Senior Member

    Israel
    Hebrew
    Berndf, i know how to read the bible, and how to pronounce words in it. I am not mistaken.
     
  41. berndf Moderator

    Geneva
    German (Germany)
    These two (in red) are correct when transcribing modern but wrong when transcribing Masoretic Hebrew. Not that it really mattered. Just to show you that there is no unambiguous "correct". It always depends on the variety of Hebrew you consider.
     
  42. arielipi Senior Member

    Israel
    Hebrew
    To me, kh represents the original khet in hebrew, much like its arabic equivalent. I cant just right h because thats equivalent for he, nor ch because thats either as in chase or chaf.
    So, i am right.
     
  43. berndf Moderator

    Geneva
    German (Germany)
    If you use a non-standard transcription system, you add to the confusion rather than reducing it. <kh> stands for the sound of khaf (or khaph, as you like) and Arabic خ. The conventional transcription of ħeth and Arabic ح is <ħ> (IPA) or <ḥ> (traditional transcription by Semiticists). And that is clevermizo's transcription in #20.
    So, he is right.
     
  44. arielipi Senior Member

    Israel
    Hebrew
    So we can have genghis khan but not khalil? Anyhow i dont have those on my keyboard so I just do with what i have, also everywhere ive seen - kh was used as khet.
     
  45. berndf Moderator

    Geneva
    German (Germany)
    Because it is correct in modern Hebrew. If the difference is important, you other ways, i.e. H=/ħ/ and h=/h/, or, as it is sometimes done for transcribing Arabic 7=/ħ/ and h=/h/. The point is when trying to verify an influence hypothesis you always have to be aware what dialect or development stage of a language is implied by your theory. Prescriptive concepts like "correct" can be very misleading.
     
  46. Abu Rashid

    Abu Rashid Senior Member

    Melbourne, Australia
    Australian English
    When the two distinct Semitic phonemes represented by ح and خ in Arabic, merged in Hebrew, it was originally the خ sound which disappeared, merging into ح seamlessly. Only in recent times did Hebrew speakers begin to confuse this with the sound of خ.

    Therefore berndf's point is, that unless we're saying ancient Welsh was based on modern Israeli Hebrew as spoken by Ashkenazim, then the idea that ח matches a Welsh phoneme transcribed as 'kh' makes no sense.
     
  47. clevermizo Moderator

    St. Louis, MO
    English (USA), Spanish
    Thanks, I've corrected the kamats katan and shva nakh/na in my post. However, I can see no other corrections to that given the nikudot I copied. However, my Tiberian transliteration below it is in fact based on ancient phonology, not modern.

    Again, let's not split hairs though. 1) Transliteration is not how you properly compare different languages, which is what I was trying to point out initially, unless everyone is using the same well-defined system. 2) Your corrected transliteration doesn't look very similar to the quoted Welsh, proving my point that if we use a different, more correct, transliteration any superficial similarities the original author was trying to show between Hebrew and Welsh can disappear. 3) The quoted Welsh is wrong to begin with. If you google those phrases you don't end up with sites with Biblical text, only sites intending to purport the idea that Welsh and Hebrew are closely related.
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2013
  48. arielipi Senior Member

    Israel
    Hebrew
    Again im saying, i wasnt talking about the theory suggested here, only about the mistakes done at transliterating the sentences.

    @abu rashid - im not sure what youre saying, but i was only talking about the hebrew side, with no relation to the theory given. I only explained i write khet with kh.
     
  49. berndf Moderator

    Geneva
    German (Germany)
    Ok, that's fine then.:)
     
  50. Hulalessar Senior Member

    Andalucía
    English - England
    Quite. The problem is that when you are using the standard roman alphabet, whether as a transliteration or transcription, the graphemes may have different values for different languages and according to the orthography used to write the language used by the person making the transliteration or transcription. Further, you may be comparing a transliteration or transcription with an etymological orthography.

    As an example, <ll> has different values in the orthographies used to write English, Welsh, Spanish and Italian. Not only that but the sound represented by <ll> in writing Spanish is represented by <lh> in Portuguese and by <gl> in Italian. That means that looking at what is on the page you can see similarities which in fact only exist in writing and may miss cognates because they are not apparent from writing. And that is when looking at languages which have been written in roman script for centuries. When you start comparing such languages (and remember some have orthographies more etymological than others) with transliterations or transcriptions of languages traditionally written in other scripts the possibility of being misled multiplies.

    Equally, orthography may be a reliable guide. Despite the fact that <g> before <i> represents different sounds in English, French, Spanish and Italian we know that <religion> (English and French) <religión> (Spanish) and <religione> (Italian) are "all the same word" - the <g> has in all cases been carried forward from Latin <religio> (with in fact yet another values for <g>).
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2013

Share This Page