From: Mark E. Shoulson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Jan 16 2004 - 15:54:02 EST
On 01/16/04 07:33, Peter Kirk wrote:
> Michael, you seem to have written "shan" rather than "shin" twice
> independently in the subject line, so presumably this is not a typo.
> Do you actually hold that the letter is called "shan" rather than
> "shin"? Do you have any evidence for this? Are you basing this on the
> table at http://www.the-samaritans.com/script.htm? As this table looks
> rather old, possibly copied from a 19th century book, it would be good
> to check that these are the names in current use by the Samaritan
It occurs in "A Grammar of Samaritan Hebrew", Ze'ev Ben-Ḥayyimm (c) 2000.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 16 2004 - 16:27:39 EST