PART ONE: THE ALPHABET

Hebrew Alphabet:
Square Hebrew Samaritan Hebrew Paleo/Original Hebrew Greek Pronunciation of Original Hebrew

a a A
(Kh)
b b B
(P)
g g G
d d D
h h E
(H)
w w U
(W)
z z Z
x c H
j j
()
y y I
(Y)
k k K
l l L
m m M
n n N
s s Sh
(X(Dsh))
p p V
(F)
[ o O
 ( )
c x Zh
(J(Dzh))
q q Q
(C(Tch))
r r R
f e S
t t T
There were thus three main scripts for the Hebrew alphabet as presented above; however in the Dead
Sea Scrolls, was found special cryptic/secret scripts. It is unknown when these secret scripts originated,
but they used different letter signs to convey letter values (in certain instances, using the first letter of
the alphabet in the place of the last letter of the alphabet and the second letter of the alphabet in the
place of the second to last letter of the alphabet, and so on and so forth; the same concept is attested to
by the Jews with what is referred to by them as Atbash). All of these scripts diverged considerably in
appearance, via various means such as cursive forms and other quick and messy forms of writing as
compared to careful and organized forms of writing.

The names of the letters of the Hebrew Alphabet are as follows (it should briefly be noted: in Hebrew,
words are read from right to left, not left to right as in English; the Ge'ez (Ethiopian) language and the
Greek language were also originally written right to left in ancient times, but eventually people
switched the order and began writing the words left to right, and it is because of the Greeks that this left
to right order which we use today for English and other Indo-European languages originated. On rare
occasions, Hebrew was written left to right and sometimes boustrephedon (i.e alternating between left
and right every other line), but this was never the norm and failed to reach widespread usage):

Alif/Aleph=@la/pla=a/a
Biyt/Bet=tyb/tyb=b/b
Gimawl/Gimel=lmg/lmg=g/g
Dilawt/Dalet=tld/tld=d/d
Ha/He=ah/ah=h/h
Wuw/Waw=ww/ww=w/w
Ziyn/Zayin=!yz/nyz=z/z
Hiyt/Khet=tyx/tyx=x/x
iyt/Tet=tyj/tyj=j/j
Yuwd/Yod=dwy/dwy=y/y
Kif/Kaf=@k/pk=k/k
Limawd/Lamed=dml/dml=l/l
Mim/Mem=~ym/mym=m/m
Nuwn/Nun=!wn/nwn=n/n
Shimawk/Samekh=$ms/kms=s/s
Va/Pe=ap/ap=p/p
Oyn/Ayin=!y[/ny[=[/[
Zhidiy/Tsadi=ydc/ydc=c/c
Quwf/Qoph=@wq/pwq=q/q
Riys/Resh=fyr/fyr=r/r
Siyn/Shin=!yf/nyf=f/f
Tuw/Taw=wt/wt=t/t

These names of the Hebrew letters are corroborated by the Septuagint and in Greek transcriptions
dating from the fifth century BC (so I have read). However, it is unclear whether or not these were the
original names of the Hebrew letters. For example, in Ge'ez, which is an ancient language derived from
ancient Hebrew, instead of Nuwn (fish), we see Nihaws (snake). There are also discrepancies that occur
when comparing the names of the Greek alphabet with the names of the Hebrew alphabet.

The following are the rules of the original Biblical/Paleo Hebrew pronunciation:

a/a: A as in Apple when preceding a consonant or ending a syllable; Kh as in Khat when preceding a
vowel except when forming a diphthong.
b/b: B as in Banana when beginning a syllable; P as in Pizza when ending a syllable.
g/g: G as in Grape.
d/d: D as in Date.
h/h: E as in Egg when preceding a consonant or ending a syllable; H as in Herb when preceding a
vowel except when forming a diphthong.
w/w: U as in Juice when preceding a consonant or ending a syllable; W as in Water when preceding a
vowel.
z/z: Z as in Zucchini.
x/x: H as in Honey.
j/j: as in Thistle-weed when beginning a syllable, as in Seething when ending a syllable.
y/y: I as in Spaghetti when preceding a consonant or ending a syllable; Y as in Yam when preceding a
vowel.
k/k: K as in Kamut.
l/l: L as in Lamb.
m/m: M as in Milk.
n/n: N as in Nut.
s/s: Sh as in Sheep when beginning a syllable; X as in Bird-shoulder when ending a syllable.
p/p: V as in Vine when beginning a syllable; F as in Flower when ending a syllable.
[/[: O as in Orange when preceding a consonant or ending a syllable; as in ghee when preceding a
vowel except when forming a diphthong.
c/c: Zh as in Measure when beginning a syllable; J as in Jelly when ending a syllable.
q/q: Q as in Barbeque when beginning a syllable; C as in Cheese when ending a syllable.
r/r: R as in Roe.
f/f: S as in Soup.
t/t: T as in Tea.
In Hebrew, two consecutive vowels can also form diphthongs. Diphthongs are when two consecutive
vowels come together to combine into a different sound than they otherwise would be in. A diphthong
in Hebrew is always only two Hebrew letters long, and in order to form the diphthong, the second letter
must be either w/w or y/y.

The following are the diphthongs:

ya/ya: ai as in Pie. Notice that this Ai sound is composed of two distinct letters: a/a and y/y. To
understand why the sound/pronunciation of a diphthong is what it is, it is very easy to discern the origin
of it: in this case, pronounce the first letter: You get the A sound (the a in cat). Pronounce the second
letter, and you get the EE sound like the ee in teeth. Now say them one after the other, but distinctly.
A, EE. Now say them one after the other, but roll them together, not taking a stop to breathe or to give
silence, but to flow the two together; link them. You will hear how the A and EE, when you roll them
together and do not enunciate silence between them, will form the combined sound ai as in Pie.

yh/yh: ei as in Grape. Notice that this Ei sound is composed of two distinct letters: h/h and y/y. In
this case, pronounce the first letter: You get the E sound (the e in leg). Pronounce the second letter, and
you get the EE sound like the ee in teeth. Now say them one after the other, but distinctly. E, EE.
Now say them one after the other, but roll them together, not taking a stop to breathe or to give silence,
but to flow the two together; link them. You will hear how the E and EE, when you roll them together
and do not enunciate silence between them, will form the combined sound ei as in Grape.

y[/y[: oi as in Soy. Notice that this Oi sound is composed of two distinct letters: [/[ and y/y. In this
case, pronounce the first letter: You get the O sound (the o in cone). Pronounce the second letter, and
you get the EE sound like the ee in teeth. Now say them one after the other, but distinctly. O, EE.
Now say them one after the other, but roll them together, not taking a stop to breathe or to give silence,
but to flow the two together; link them. You will hear how the O and EE when you roll them together
and do not enunciate silence between them, will form the combined sound oi as in Soy.

wa/wa: au as in Cow. Notice that this Au sound is composed of two distinct letters: a/a and w/w. In this
case, pronounce the first letter: You get the A sound. Pronounce the second letter, and you get the UW
sound like the oo in Moon. Now say them one after the other, but distinctly. A, UW. Now say them
one after the other, but roll them together, not taking a stop to breathe or to give silence, but to flow the
two together; link them. You will hear how the A and UW, when you roll them together and do not
enunciate silence between them, will form the combined sound au as the ow in Cow.
wh/wh: eu as in Wood. Notice that this Eu sound is composed of two distinct letters: h/h and w/w. In
this case, pronounce the first letter: You get the E sound. Pronounce the second letter, and you get the
UW sound like the oo in Moon. Now say them one after the other, but distinctly. E, UW. Now say
them one after the other, but roll them together, not taking a stop to breathe or to give silence, but to
flow the two together; link them. You will hear how the E and UW, when you roll them together and
do not enunciate silence between them, will form the combined sound eu as in
Wood/Hood/Good/Took/Look.

w[/w[: ou as in Bun. Notice that this Ou sound is composed of two distinct letters: [/[ and w/w. In this
case, pronounce the first letter: You get the O sound. Pronounce the second sound, and you get the UW
sound like the oo in Moon. Now say them one after the other, but distinctly. O, UW. Now say them
one after the other, but roll them together, not taking a stop to breathe or to give silence, but to flow the
two together; link them. You will hear how the O and UW when you roll them together and do not
enunciate silence between them, will form the combined sound ou as in Nut.

Thus the Hebrew Alphabet consists of 22 letters. All 22 letters have a consonantal value. However, five
of the letters also have (and predominantly so) a vocalic (i.e a vowel) value.

These 17 letters are always, and exclusively so, consonantal in value:

t f r q c p s n m l k j x z d g b: Paleo Hebrew Script

t f r q c p s n m l k j x z d g b: Square Hebrew Script
These 5 letters are usually vocalic in value, but are occasionally consonantal (or both vocalic and
consonantal) in value as well:

[ y w h a:
[ y w h a:
These five letters can double in sound as both a vowel and consonant at the same time. For example:

hab/hab
This is pronounced as Bakheh. The reason is the letter a/a ends a syllable, but also precedes a vowel.

bahl/bahl
This is pronounced as Lehap. The reason is the letter h/h ends a syllable, but also precedes a vowel.

h[r/h[r
This is pronounced as Rogheh. The reason is the letter [/[ ends a syllable, but also precedes a vowel.

awl/awl
This is pronounced as Luwa. The reason is the letter w/w ends a syllable, but also precedes a vowel.
ayk/ayk
This is pronounced as Kiya. The reason is the letter y/y ends a syllable, but also precedes a vowel.

The original pronunciation of Hebrew was altered over time due to dialects developing, and this
eventually led to the creation of Aramaic. Aramaic started out as a mere dialect of Hebrew but
eventually became a distinct language.

There are many dialects of the Hebrew language that developed, but they are all primarily variations of
a single ancient Hebrew dialect, that being the Aramaic Hebrew dialect. The following is a close
approximation of the original Aramaic Hebrew dialect (which the various Hebrew and Aramaic dialects
still closely follow more or less):

Square Hebrew Samaritan Hebrew Greek Pronunciation of Aramaic Hebrew

a a A/E/Ih
(Kh)
b b B
(V)
g g G
d d D
h h E/Ah/Ih
(H)
w w U/Au/Eu/Ou
(W)
z z Z
(Zh)
x c Kh
j j T
y y I/Ih/Ai/Ei/Oi
(Y)
k k K
l l L
 m m M
n n N
s s S
p p P
(F)
[ o O/E/Ih/Ah/Uh
/J(Dzh)
c x X(Dsh)
(C(Tch))
q q Q
r r R
f e Sh
(S)
t t /
(T)
Diphthongs also ceased being pronounced in the Aramaic dialect. Eventually, some of the speakers of
the Aramaic dialect of Hebrew started writing the Hebrew letters as they pronounced them rather than
the original letters that were to be used, and they also began replacing feminine forms with neuter
forms. This resulted in the creation of the Aramaic language, from which all other Semitic languages
are derived. The creation of Aramaic thus resulted in feminine forms being replaced with neuter forms,
loss of neuter significations of words, loss of the etymological value of the letters, radical changes in
pronunciation, and radical changes in spelling words. There also occurred loss of the aorist past and
aorist present tenses. Archaic vocabulary words from Hebrew which speakers no longer desired to
used often were dropped entirely, making major holes in the linguistic database of the Semitic
languages, this hole being partially filled via loan words from other languages.

The following peculiarities occur in Aramaic (and in late Hebrew) as a language decaying from its state
of perfection that it had in Biblical Hebrew:

Addition of letters to words, such as a/a and f/f. Addition of r/r and l/l in the middle of words.
Addition of n/n in words. Omission of a/a and [/[. Transposition of letters (qlx/qlx corrupted into
lqx/lqx). Change of b/b into p/p. Change of c/c into [/[. Change of f/f into s/s. Change of
z/z into d/d. Change of c/c into j/j. Change of f/f into t/t. Change of g/g into k/k. Change of
d/d into j/j. Change of k/k into q/q. Change of l/l into r/r. There are many other examples of
alterations of letters, but these are the most common alterations that can be observed between the
original Hebrew language and the latter Aramaic language.

An example of this phenomenon of alteration of spelling occurs in Judges 12:5-6 And the Gileadites
took the passages of Jordan before the Ephraimites: and it was so, that when those Ephraimites which
were escaped said, Let me go over; that the men of Gilead said unto him, Art thou an Ephraimite? If he
said, Nay;Then said they unto him, Say now tlbf/tlbf (Sibawlit): and he said tlbs/tlbf
(Shibawlit): for he could not frame to pronounce it right. Then they took him, and slew him at the
passages of Jordan: and there fell at that time of the Ephraimites forty and two thousand. Notice that
the S and Sh was confused in pronunciation. The Hebrew text below shows the two words in question:

This is classic Aramaicizing of Hebrew. Thus, in Aramaic, /f came to have the value of s/s and
s/s came to have the value of f/f. This confirms the idea that the original pronunciation of f/f
differed from that of the Aramaic pronunciation. In the Bible, Ephraim was part of the Northern
Kingdom of Israel and the Northern Kingdom spoke a dialect of Hebrew much closer to Aramaic,
whereas the Southern Kingdom of Israel, Judah, continued to speak the original Paleo Hebrew more or
less up until the time of the destruction of the first temple, but after being captured by the Babylonians,
who spoke Aramaic, most of the exiles lost the original Paleo Hebrew understanding.

As the Aramaic dialect developed early on, the speakers of the Aramaic dialect of Hebrew also started
inverting the order of the letters p/p and [/[ to [/[ and p/p. The original order of the Hebrew alphabet
is found in the Hebrew Bible in the acrostic (alphabetic) poems of the Book of Lamentations chapters
2-4 (and chapter 1 of Lamentations in the Dead Sea Scrolls) and the LXX of Proverbs chapter 31 for
the poem of the noble wife, as well as in all known Israeli alphabetic lists known to exist which predate
the destruction of the first temple. The following quotation from Jewish scholar Mitchell First shows
that all Israelite lists of the Hebrew alphabet found which predate the destruction of the first temple
preserves the order of p/p first and then [/[ rather than [/[ first and then p/p:

In 1976, a potsherd was discovered at Izbet Sartah, in Western Samaria, dating to about 1200 BCE.
The potsherd had five lines of Hebrew writing on it, one of which was an abecedary (an inscription of
the letters of the alphabet in order). In this abecedary, the pe preceded the ayin. There is a scholarly
consensus that Izbet Sartah was an Israelite settlement in this period. During excavations in 197576 in
the northeast Sinai, a jar fragment was discovered that included three Hebrew abecedaries in which the
pe preceded the ayin. The site dates to approximately 800 BCE. In 2005, a Hebrew abecedary inscribed
on a stone was discovered at Tel Zayit, a site north of Lachish. The stone had been used in the
construction of a wall belonging to a 10th century BCE structure. This abecedary also followed the
order of pe preceding ayin. Most probably, Tel Zayit was part of the area of the tribe of Judah in the
10th century BCE. In recent years, another ostracon with three Hebrew abecedaries with pe preceding
ayin has come to light. Its provenance is unknown, but the writing can be dated to the late seventh or
early sixth century BCE. (Supposedly, it was found in the debris of the Temple Mount.) The
abecedaries mentioned above are the only ones that have been discovered in ancient Israel that date
from the period of the Judges and the First Temple and that span the letters ayin and pe. Pe precedes
ayin in every one! As we have seen, these abecedaries come from different regions in ancient Israel, not
merely from one limited area. All of this suggests that pe preceding ayin was the original order in
ancient Israel!
In determining the original pronunciation of the Hebrew alphabet, we can use the alphabet. Almost
every single language's alphabet is derived from the Phoenician Hebrew alphabet.

The following quotation illustrates this most effectively: Middle Eastern descendants: The Paleo-
Hebrew alphabet, used to write early Hebrew, was a regional offshoot of Phoenician; it is nearly
identical to the Phoenician one. The Samaritan alphabet, used by the Samaritans, is a direct descendant
of the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet. The Aramaic alphabet, used to write Aramaic, is another descendant of
Phoenician. Aramaic being the lingua franca of the Middle East, it was widely adopted. It later split off
(due to power/political borders) into a number of related alphabets, including the Hebrew alphabet, the
Syriac alphabet, and the Nabataean alphabet, which in its cursive form became an ancestor of Arabic,
currently used in Arabic-speaking countries from North Africa through the Levant to Iraq and the Gulf
region, as well as in Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and other countries for other languages. The Sogdian
alphabet, a descendant of Phoenician via Syriac, is an ancestor of the Old Uyghur, which in turn is an
ancestor of the Mongolian and Manchu alphabets, the former of which is still in use and the latter of
which survives as the Xibe script. The Arabic script is a descendant of Phoenician via Aramaic. The
Coptic alphabet, still used in Egypt for writing the Christian liturgical language Coptic (descended
from Ancient Egyptian) is mostly based on the Greek alphabet, but with a few additional letters for
sounds not in Greek at the time. Those additional letters are based on Demotic script.

Derived European scripts: According to Herodotus, Phoenician prince Cadmus was accredited with the
introduction of the Phoenician alphabetphoinikeia grammata, "Phoenician letters"to the Greeks,
who adapted it to form their Greek alphabet, which was later introduced to the rest of Europe.
Herodotus, who gives this account, estimates that Cadmus lived sixteen hundred years before his time,
or around 2000 BC. However, Herodotus' writings are not used as a standard source by contemporary
historians. The Greek alphabet is derived from the Phoenician alphabet. [] The Cyrillic script was
derived from the Greek alphabet. Some Cyrillic letters (generally for sounds not in Mediaeval Greek)
are based on Glagolitic forms, which in turn were influenced by the Hebrew or even Coptic alphabets.
The Latin alphabet was derived from Old Italic (originally a form of the Greek alphabet), used for
Etruscan and other languages. The origin of the Runic alphabet is disputed, and the main theories are
that it evolved either from the Latin alphabet itself, some early Old Italic alphabet via the Alpine scripts
or the Greek alphabet. Despite this debate, the Runic alphabet is clearly derived from one or more
scripts which ultimately trace their roots back to the Phoenician alphabet.

Brahmic scripts: Some historians believe that the Brahmi script of India and the subsequent Indic
alphabets are derived from the Aramaic script as well, which would make Phoenician the ancestor of
most writing systems in use today.

These facts can most readily be demonstrated by comparing the Greek Alphabet with the Paleo Hebrew
Alphabet:
Paleo/Original Hebrew Paleo/Original Greek Pronunciation of Original Hebrew

B
G
 D
E
U
Z
H

()
I

K
L
M
N
X
V
O
J
Q
R
S
T
Notice that the Greek, English, and Hebrew alphabets have the following correspondence:

A B G D E F Z H I K L M N O P J Q R S T U V X Y W : Greek
ABCDEFGH IJKLMN O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z: English
ABGDE UZ H I KLMNXOPJQRST : Hebrew

You can see that the letters in the Paleo Hebrew look strikingly similar to the letters in the Greek and
English. This striking correspondence with the standard order of the Hebrew alphabet (the order with
[/[ first and then p/p afterwards) enables us to determine that the English alphabet is derived from the
Hebrew alphabet. That being the case, let us ask ourselves, what is the pronunciation of the letter
Aleph? Well, in every language that has its alphabet derived from the Paleo Hebrew alphabet, A is A.
So why is it that the letter A in Hebrew is not considered A as well by the scholars? It doesn't make
sense. Its clear from the correspondence of the Greek and English alphabets with the Paleo Hebrew
alphabet, that the original pronunciation of the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet was A. And when
we do this comparison for every letter of the Hebrew alphabet, we see that every letter of the Paleo
Hebrew alphabet as well as the proper pronunciation of those letters was usually preserved more
accurately in the Greek and English alphabets and languages.

You can see clearly with the above table that the Greek Alphabet and the English Alphabet closely
matches the Paleo Hebrew alphabet. This means that it is absolutely valid and accurate to make
identifications of the Paleo Hebrew Alphabet with the Greek Alphabet and English Alphabet. These
identifications can be made via letter order in the alphabet as well as shape and appearance of the
letters compared to the Paleo Hebrew originals. The following information makes for a compelling
identification of the original pronunciation of the letters:

All scholars and all languages which have their alphabets derived from the Phoenician alphabet
essentially agree with the following identifications for the original pronunciation of these letters:

g/g=G
d/d=D
w/w=U/W
z/z=Z
y/y=I/Y
k/k=K
l/l=L
m/m=M
n/n=N
q/q=Q
r/r=R
Thus, half of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet are without controversy as to the original signification
in sound and pronunciation. That just leaves the remaining half of the letters.

The pronunciation of the following letters is with controversy, but whose current pronunciation is close
to the original pronunciation:

b/b=B/P (not B/V)

j/j=/ (not T)
x/x=H (not Kh)
s/s=Sh/X (not S)
p/p=V/F (not P/F)
c/c=Zh/J (not Ts)
f/f=S (not Sh/S)
t/t=T (not /T)
For x/x, the standard Jewish pronunciation is giving it a harder H consonantal sound, closer to a Kh
rather than a mere H. This difference is slight, and my identification of this letter with the sound H is
confident due to its exact correspondence with the Greek and English version of this letter: H.
Similarly for c/c, the standard Jewish pronunciation is giving it a ts sound. This ts sound is very close
to tzh/dzh, and so one can readily see how close ts and j's approximation is; my identification of the
sounds Zh and J for the letter c/c parallels my identification of the sounds Sh and X for the letter s/s.
The letters f/f and t/t have two standard Jewish pronunciations: Sh/S and /T. So that means the
original pronunciation of these two letters had to either be Sh and or S and T. The Greek and Latin
alphabets, as well as all alphabets derived from the Greek and Latin, preserve the S sound and T
sounds rather than the Sh and sounds for these two letters. This being the case, it is evident that
the original pronunciations must have been S and T not Sh and . f/f must have been later
on pronounced as , and then , sounding like Sh, came to supplement the S sound. s/s on
the other hand, having the secondary sound of X originally, must have later lost its Sh sound due to
the Sh sound being adopted by the letter f/f. Likewise, t/t must have been later on pronounced as
, and then , sounding like , came to supplement the T sound. j/j on the other hand,
having the secondary sound of originally, must have later lost its sound due to the sound
being adopted by the letter t/t, and the sound, sounding very close to the T sound, must have
been substituted by the T sound early, due to how close the T sound is with the sound. These
observations are confirmed by the fact that the Greek alphabet and all alphabets derived from the Greek
which preserve the letters j/j and s/s pronounce the j/j as / and the s/s as Sh/X. In
support of the view that the original pronunciation may indeed be what I have said, the celebrated
scholar, Gesenius, says this The original value of s, and its relation to the original value of f and v, is
still undetermined...

For b/b, there are two standard Jewish pronunciations: B and V. All alphabets derived from the
Greek alphabet and Latin alphabet pronounce this letter as B rather than V. When a syllable ends
in a B sound, if you say it quickly or without strong emphasis, the B readily loses its strong value
and slides into a V sound. However, the hard B on the other hand has much more in common with
the P sound. For example, try saying Lobster. Now try saying that same word, but instead of spelling
and pronouncing it with a b, replace the letter b with the letter p: Lopster. You'll notice that Lobster and
Lopster are virtually indistinguishable. In contrast, Lobster and Lovster are very much distinguishable.
The same is the case for the letter p/p: its two standard Jewish pronunciations are P and F; when a
syllable ends in a P sound, if you say it quickly or without strong emphasis, the P readily loses its
strong value and slides into an F sound. However, V on the other hand has much more in common
with the F sound. For example, try saying After. Now try saying that same word, but instead of
spelling and pronouncing it with an f, replace the letter f with the letter v: Avter. You'll notice that After
and Avter are virtually indistinguishable. In contrast, After and Apter are very much distinguishable.
Therefore, what is less distinguishable is most likely to be associated with one another in its original
form of pronunciation. How then does one explain why the letter p/p is pronounced in most other
languages derived from Greek as P? This came to happen as a result of the phenomenon that
Grimm's law tries to explain away. In fact, the differences noted in this section of the original
pronunciation as compared to the later standard Jewish pronunciation matches strikingly with Grimm's
law for the sound alterations. The following quotations best illustrate this concept:

Grimm's law consists of three parts which form consecutive phases in the sense of a chain shift. The
phases are usually constructed as follows:

Proto-Indo-European voiceless stops change into voiceless fricatives.

Proto-Indo-European voiced stops become voiceless stops.
Proto-Indo-European voiced aspirated stops become voiced stops or fricatives (as allophones).
This chain shift can be abstractly represented as:

b > b > p >

d > d > t >
g > g > k > x
g > g > k > x
Here each sound moves one position to the right to take on its new sound value.

The most illustrative examples are used here.

Non-Germanic (unshifted)
Meaning Change Germanic (shifted) examples
cognates
Ancient Greek: ,
English: foot, West Frisian: foet,
(pos, pods), Latin: ps,
German: Fu, Gothic: ftus, Icelandic,
"foot" pedis,Sanskrit: pda, Russian: *p > f []
Faroese: ftur, Danish: fod, Norwegian,
(pod) "under; floor",
Swedish: fot
Lithuanian:pda, Latvian pda
Ancient Greek: (tritos),
Latin: tertius, Welsh: trydydd,
English: third, Old Frisian: thredda,
Sanskrit: treta, Russian:
"third" *t > [] Old Saxon: thriddio, Gothic: ridja,
(tretij),
Icelandic:riji, Danish: tredje
Lithuanian: treias,
Albanian: tret
English: hound, Dutch: hond,
Ancient Greek: (kn),
German: Hund, Gothic: hunds,
"dog" Latin: canis, *k > h [x]
Icelandic, Faroese: hundur, Danish,
Welsh: ci (pl. cwn)
Norwegian, Swedish: hund
 Latin: quod, Irish: cad,
"what" Sanskrit: kd, Russian: -
(ko-), Lithuanian: kas
"deep" Lithuanian: dubs
Latin: decem, Greek:
(dka), Irish: deich,
"ten" Sanskrit:daan, Russian:
(desyat'),
Lithuanian: deimt
Latin: gel, Greek:
"cold" (gelandrs),
Lithuanian:gelmenis, gelum
Lithuanian: gyvas
"alive"
Sanskrit: bhrt, Ancient
"brother" Greek: (phrtr) *b > b [b]/[]
("member of a brotherhood")
Sanskrit: mdhu, Homeric
"honey"
Greek: (methu)
English: what, Gothic: a ("hwa"),
*k > hw [x] Icelandic: hva, Faroese: hvat,
Danish: hvad, Norwegian: hva
English: deep, West Frisian: djip,
*b > p [p] Dutch: diep, Icelandic: djpur,
Swedish: djup, Gothic diups
English: ten, Dutch: tien,
Gothic: tahun, Icelandic: tu,
*d > t [t]
Faroese: tggju, Danish, Norwegian: ti,
Swedish: tio
English: cold, West Frisian: kld,
Dutch: koud, German: kalt, Icelandic,
*g > k [k]
Faroese:kaldur, Danish: kold,
Norwegian: kald, Swedish: kall
English: quick, West Frisian: kwik,
kwyk, Dutch: kwiek, German: keck,
*g > kw [k] Gothic:qius, Icelandic, Faroese: kvikur,
Danish: kvik, Swedish: kvick,
Norwegian kvikk
English: brother, West Frisian,
Dutch: broeder, German: Bruder,
Gothic: broar, Icelandic,
Faroese: brir, Danish, Swedish,
Norwegian: broder
English: mead, East Frisian: meede,
Dutch: mede,
*d > d [d]/[]
Danish/Norwegian: mjd,
Icelandic: mjur , Swedish: mjd

This is strikingly regular. Each phase involves one single change which applies equally to the labials (p,
b, b, f) and their equivalent dentals (t, d, d, ), velars (k, g, g, h) and rounded velars (k, g, g, h).
The first phase left the phoneme repertoire of the language without voiceless stops, the second phase
filled this gap, but created a new one, and so on until the chain had run its course.

So in other words, when seeing parallel examples such as Pater in Greek and Latin, vs Father and Fader
in Germanic languages, the differences in pronunciation can be best explained with the Paleo Hebrew
originally having a different pronunciation for these letters than the later dialects of the Hebrew
language and the dialects of the Aramaic language (and all other semitic languages derived from
Aramaic, such as Arabic, Ge'ez, etc). There are many other examples which illustrate this concept. So,
one can confidently conclude that the letter b/b never had the pronunciation of V originally, and that
thus, the letter p/p never had the pronunciation of P originally either, and therefore the original
pronunciation of these two letters was:

b/b=B/P
p/p=V/F
That just leaves us with the pronunciation of the three remaining letters of the Hebrew Alphabet:

a/a=A/Kh
h/h=E/H
[/[=O/
According to the standard Hebrew pronunciation, these three letters are special guttural and aspirated
sounds. The standard pronunciation of the Jews for h/h is H. I agree with them in the standard
pronunciation, however I believe h/h has a softer H sound than x/x does; the Jews agree it has a
softer sound, but they give a stronger H sound to x/x than I do: they make it h/h=H and x/x=Kh,
whereas I understand the correct original pronunciation to be softer for both letters: h/h=H (almost
silent) and x/x=H. So just like the words honorable, hour, and herbs. There is in fact the sound
H in these words, but that sound is slight and approaches silence. This near silent letter best explains
its absence in the alphabets derived from Greek and Latin. The standard pronunciation of the Jews for
[/[ is as a guttural. I agree with them in the standard pronunciation; this pronunciation is best
observed in the words Gomorrah and Gaza, which are both spelled with an initial [/[ being
pronounced as a sound. All the other sounds being taken by other letters, that leaves the Kh sound
remaining, and the only remaining letter which is a candidate for that sound is a/a, and so that makes it
a confident conclusion that a/a, when having a guttural sound, was originally pronounced Kh.
However, what do we make of the vowel sounds for these three letters? In English, the vowel letters
can have a surprising level of variation in sound value for each vowel letter (for example, the letter A
in English can have the sounds used in cat all same and christian, the letter E in English can
have the sounds used in let, her, and ew, the letter I in English can have the sounds used in
machine, win, and fine, the letter O in English can have the sound used in hope love
stomp and onion, and the letter U in English can have the sound used in tune and jump. And
there are many other sound examples as well that illustrate variety). So then, just as, originally, Old
English had a narrow range of pronunciation for the vowel letters, but Middle English and Modern
English developed a wider range of pronunciation, so also the same process of original narrow
pronunciation developing into wider pronunciation occurred in all other languages; Hebrew is no
exception. But despite the wide range of variation of vowels in all latter developments of languages as
compared to their original phonemic significations, in all the other languages the original sound and the
letter identification is still always discernible immediately, such that no language when pronouncing the
letter A in any of its various ranges of pronunciation, thinks the letter A has any other sound or
identity than the letter A. Why then, would the Semitic languages be the only exception to this rule?
It makes absolutely no sense; it is thus absolutely clear that the original identification of these three
vowel letters are in fact A, E, and O; this explanation best explains the latter development/rise in
variance of sound; without a core original vowel value, the variation of vowel sound in these letters
makes absolutely no sense. With the original core vowel values assigned, the differentiation is perfectly
explainable and given a sufficient historical and linguistic context. Even now, when I spell my Hebrew
name in English as Onieh, I have a friend who even after I said the pronunciation of my name to him,
Ohnieh (as in note), he heard it (or remembered it) as Onieh (as in on and gone). Does pronouncing
the O letter as awn/on make it a different letter than O? Of course not! So then, although later
dialects of Hebrew produced a wide range of vowel letters to the letter [/[/O, this is no justification to
say that this Hebrew letter's original identification and vowel value is anything other than O! The
original vowel sound value for these three letters is also preserved in most of the diphthongs of Greek
and Latin: ai, ei, oi, au, eu, and ou. You cannot form these diphthongs unless the value of a is a as
in dad, the e is e as in yellow, and the o is o as in stone. Therefore, my identification is in
fact necessarily correct by virtue of natural laws of language and by virtue of cognate language
development.

The letters w/w and y/y have in Greek and Latin and English the value of diphthong, as well as the value
of doubling up as a letter and consonant that it does in Hebrew; for example, the word patriarch, even
though its spelled with one i only, clearly has the sound y as part of the letter, so that
patriarch/patriyarch has the same sound and same exact meaning, and since they are the same, the y
is unnecessary for conveying the sound, since the letter y/y in fact doubles up as both the vowel and
the consonant sound. Likewise, the word fluent, even though its spelled with one u only, clearly
has the sound w as part of the letter, so that fluent/fluwent has the same sound and same exact
meaning, and since they are the same, the w is unnecessary for conveying the sound. Now, try saying
the name Jo-anne and the name Je-anne and the name Ja-on. Those three names have two
syllables, and when you flow the syllables together, you can hear it produce a faint aspirated sound
between those syllables in each case: Joghanne, Jehanne, and Jakhon. Thus, the Greek, Latin, and
English all confirm, through the natural laws of language that all languages share, that the original
pronunciation of these vowel letters is indeed what I have said. It should be noted that w/w early on
developed in addition to the w sound the v sound. This w/v sound was the original sound to the
letter F which originated in Greek (the Greek letter is called Digamma, and was used at an early
period to distinguish the w/v sound from the u sound); the Greek letter, called Digamma, looked
like this: for capital letter, for small letter. And as I mentioned earlier, V and F are the closest
sounds to one another and are basically indistinguishable in sound in many instances. Thus, this
explains how the letter F in the English language originated, and it also explains how the original sound
of u/w transitioned into the v/f sound subsequently. And so, this makes it confident that the original
pronunciation of w/w was not u/v as some try to argue, but it was clearly and obviously the sounds u and
w (this being confirmed by the original pronunciation of the Greek letter digamma as the w sound as
agreed by the consensus of scholars; and so if the original pronunciation of digamma was w as all
scholars agree, and if digamma was merely a form of the letter w/w, then that means the original
pronunciation of w/w must have been u/w, just as Greek preserved it: u for upsilon and w for digamma,
since both of these letters were created in the Greek language from the letter w/w.)

In addition to the classification of the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet into consonants and vowels, the
22 letters also have a further classification: Radicals and Serviles.

R q c [ p s j x z d g: Radicals
rqc[psjxzdg

t f n m l k y w h b a: Serviles
tfnmlkywhba
Radical letters are letters (except in dialects and rare alternate spellings) which can never be affixed to
words, but always form part of the core root of the word. The Servile Letters on the other hand can do
both: they can form part of the core root of the word, but they can also be affixed to words to alter
meanings of the words in various ways via prefixes, infixes, and suffixes.

The Serviles further divide into three distinct categories:

Universal Serviles: y/y w/wa/a

External Serviles: t/t n/n m/m k/k h/h
Introductory Serviles: f/f l/l b/b

Introductory serviles can only be affixed via prefixes (i.e. at the beginning of root words). Prefixes are
letters which give a word a particular transformed meaning by adding letters at the beginning of the
root word. For example, the word crease in English. You can prefix to it de to form decrease or
in to form increase. There are many other words in English that you can add a de or in at the
beginning of the word to transform the meaning of the root word. And similarly, you can do so with
many other prefixes of letters at the beginning of words. If you see a word which has anywhere other
than at the beginning of the root word the following letters, it is necessarily part of the root word: f/f
l/l b/b. External serviles can be affixed via prefixes and suffixes (i.e at the end of root words).
Suffixes are letters which give a word a particular transformed meaning by adding letters at the end of a
root word. For example, the suffix ment can be added to the words punish and judge to form
punishment and judgment. If you see a word which has in the middle of a root (neither at the
beginning, nor the end) the following letters, it is necessarily part of the root word: t/t n/n m/m k/k
h/h. Universal serviles can be affixed via prefixes, suffixes, and infixes (i.e in the middle of root
words). Infixes are letters which give a word a particular transformed meaning by adding letters in the
middle of a root word. For example, in English the infix o can be infixed when wishing to convey a
different tense, such as drove from drive, dove from dive, etc. If you see a word which has any
of these letters, it is almost always the case that those letters are not part of the root, but are affixes
only: y/y w/w a/a. If there are only two letters in a word, those two letters are both part of the root
word and not affixes (though there are rare exceptions). If only one letter in a three letter word can be
an affix, that letter must necessarily be an affix. If two or three letters in a three letter word can be an
affix, one of those two or three letters must necessarily be an affix, and (with rare exceptions) only one
of those letters can be an affix. If two letters in a four letter word can be an affix, they must both
necessarily be an affix (unless the word is a compound). If three or four letters in a four letter word can
be an affix, (unless the word is a compound) two of those four letters must necessarily be an affix, and
only two of those letters can be an affix. If you see in a word the letter w/w it is (except in extremely rare
cases) always an affix and not part of the root word. If you see the letter y/y in the middle of a three
letter word or four letter word, it (with rare exceptions) must necessarily be an affix.

Each of the twenty two letters of the Hebrew alphabet come from their own special/unique root: there
are 22 one letter roots identical with the twenty two letters of the alphabet. From these one letter roots
are formed also the two letter roots and the three letter roots. There are no four letter or higher letter
roots. To cover a larger array of lexical meaning, the roots can receive serviles which serve to alter the
mode of the root to a particular quality; not creating a new root, but merely presenting it in a different
effectual combination (just like the decrease, increase, punishment, judgment examples).
These twenty two single letter roots are roughly/approximately as follows:

a/a=pose
b/b=contain
g/g=extend
d/d=foster
h/h=subsist
w/w=connect
z/z=depend/hinge
x/x=bind/compact
j/j=entangle
y/y=forward
k/k=image
l/l=turn/direct
m/m=source
n/n=propagate
s/s=invigorate
p/p=confine
[/[=focus
c/c=break
q/q=deprive
r/r=discharge
f/f=relate
t/t=present
It must be understood that Hebrew is entirely abstract, not concrete like certain scholars absurdly say.
Anyone who says that Hebrew is a concrete language is profoundly ignorant. It is always the case in all
languages that all physical words have an abstract root word in origin of its meaning. Furthermore, the
Hebrew language is the only language that was not created, but on the contrary, it was the language of
creation. According to Scripture, the Book of Jubilees, that is what we are told: Jubilees 12:26 And I
opened his mouth, and his ears and his lips, and I began to speak with him in Hebrew in the tongue of
the creation. Thus when we see that God created all of creation, He spoke things into existence. How
did He speak into existence? That is to say, what language did He speak things He was creating into
existence? He was using the language of Hebrew when He spoke things into their creation forms. And
since nothing physical existed before creation, and since the Hebrew language existed before creation,
the Hebrew language must of necessity be abstract/non-physical in its core/essential meaning.
Therefore, all animal names, for example, in Hebrew have nothing to do with their physical forms, but
rather they have to do with an abstract quality of character that was observed. For in the Book of
Genesis and the Book of Jubilees, we are told that Adam was the one who gave names to all the
animals of the earth. And what was Adam naming the animals? He certainly wasn't naming them funny
sounding names! He was naming them based on their abstract character that he observed when he
inspected them and spent time with them getting to know them better. Some people claim that the
original Hebrew script was pictographic. The problem with this claim is that there are very few
inscriptions existing of any kind of Hebrew script, and the inscriptions that do exist, its not even clear if
these are actually inscriptions of Hebrew, or of another semitic language. The oldest fragments and
inscriptions of the Hebrew language that are absolutely certain to be the Hebrew language are in a
Paleo Hebrew script which is also testified in the Dead Sea Scrolls. There are also many indications
that the Paleo Hebrew script is the original script rather than the pictographic. For example, the Dead
Sea Scrolls writers when writing scrolls in Assyrian/modern/block Hebrew script, would often write the
divine name YHWH and ELOHIM and EL in the Paleo Hebrew script. This implies that the
Dead Sea Scrolls scribes believed that the Paleo Hebrew script was the holy and sacred script. It
wouldn't be holy and sacred if it wasn't the original script of Hebrew! Similarly, in the Dead Sea
Scrolls, almost no writings are found in Paleo Hebrew script, but the most ancient and archaic ones
were found, those being the five books of the Law of Moses, the Book of Job, and the Book of Joshua.
What this indicates is that the Dead Sea Scrolls writers believed the Paleo Hebrew Script was the most
archaic and ancient script of Paleo Hebrew and that is why they reserved it for only the most archaic
and ancient of the Scriptures. On the authority of the Dead Sea Scrolls then, we should believe the
Paleo Hebrew script is the original script of the alphabet rather than the pictographic script (this
pictographic script is referred to by scholars as proto-sinaitic).

Hebrew is the original language and all languages are derived from it. That being so, there are certain
languages which developed from it via Aramaic dialects of Hebrew. Those languages are as follows:
Akkadian, Eblaite, Ugaritic, Aramaic, Arabic, and Ge'ez (and the various dialects derived from these
six languages, such as Syriac from Aramaic and Amharic from Ge'ez). Hebrew itself developed into
many dialects via Aramaic dialects, of which the following are known: Phoenician, Punic, Ammonite,
Ekronite, Ammonite, Moabite, Edomite, Ephraimite Hebrew, Tiberian Hebrew, Mizrahi Hebrew,
Yemenite Hebrew, Sephardi Hebrew, Ashkenazi Hebrew, Mishnaic Hebrew, Samaritan Hebrew, and
Modern Hebrew.

According to Scripture, 2 Esdras, we are told that Ezra was commanded by God to restore to the people
all of the Scriptures to the people, and that when he did this, this was when God introduced to the
people a new Hebrew script that He wanted them to use from now on for common usage: 2 Esdras
14:42-48 And the Most High gave understanding to the five men, and by turns they wrote what was
dictated, in characters which they did not know. They sat forty days, and wrote during the daytime, and
ate their bread at night. As for me, I spoke in the daytime and was not silent at night. So during the
forty days ninety-four books were written. And when the forty days were ended, the Most High spoke
to me, saying, "Make public the twenty-four books that you wrote first and let the worthy and the
unworthy read them; but keep the seventy that were written last, in order to give them to the wise
among your people. For in them is the spring of understanding, the fountain of wisdom, and the river of
knowledge." And I did so. This teaching from 2 Esdras is confirmed in the Oral Tradition of the Jews,
the following quotation from a jewish encyclopedia of which illustrates this: Ezra reestablished the
text of the Torah, introducing therein the Assyrian or square characters (Talmud Sanhedrin 21b). The
fact is, the Paleo Hebrew script is very holy and is not to be used for common purposes. When people
are slapping the name of YHWH in Paleo Hebrew on everything, they are committing a grave sin. His
name in Paleo Hebrew can and should be used, but not by plastering it on everything. It should only be
on items which will not be subject to profane use. For example, if you have sex on a bed that has a
blanket or covers which says YHWH's name on it in Paleo Hebrew characters, and if sperm falls onto
it, thereby defiling YHWH's name with uncleanness,that is an abomination and evil. And in short,
subjecting YHWH's name in Paleo Hebrew characters to any uncleanness or defiling is an abomination
and evil. YHWH's name in the Assyrian Hebrew script also deserves respect, just as the letters Y H W
H when used together also deserve respect. But these letters are not holy or sacred. It is also proper to
use four dots or some other means of substitution when the name is being subjected to a profane use.
Evidence in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Book of Jubilees indicates that the original word Lord was
substituted with YHWH by Moses, and that many centuries afterwards the reverse happened: the
name of YHWH was substituted by Adon, Kyrios, Lord and LORD. When YHWH's name
is not being subjected to a profane use, it should not be substituted when copying Scripture. The holy
divine name of YHWH is hwhy. The holy divine name of YHWH in the Assyrian script is hwhy.

Five of the Hebrew letters in the Assyrian Hebrew Script have final forms, which simply means these
forms are used if they end a word (these forms only occur in Hebrew using the Assyrian Script as
opposed to the original Paleo Hebrew script). They are:

#=c @=p !=n ~=m $=k

These forms were probably introduced by Ezra at the same time the Assyrian Hebrew Script was
introduced (evidence for this can be found in Zephaniah 3:8 which is the only verse in the Masoretic
text which has all the letters of the Hebrew alphabet as well as all five final letters. Since the very next
verse after it says that YHWH will restore a pure language for the people, this seems unlikely to be a
coincidence, and therefore this would indicate that Zephaniah when writing his book was aware of the
final forms and used them, meaning that in his time they had already existed; and since this new script
was invented by Ezra, there would not be enough time for the final forms to have developed
independently of Ezra, and therefore, Ezra must have been the originator of the final forms if he was in
fact the originator of the Assyrian Hebrew script itself). Each letter in the Hebrew alphabet and Greek
alphabet has a special numerical value which makes the letter able to be used for counting purposes as
well as for symbolic and prophetic purposes. This symbolic purpose is referred to by scholars as
Gematria, and occurs in Scripture, such as the Sibylline Oracles, the Testament of Solomon, the Book
of Ethiopian Clement, the Book of Revelation, and in the Epistle of Barnabas. Gematria was also
popular and common in usage amongst the rabbis.

In the following table, you will see the original numerical value for each letter:

Hebrew Alphabet:

Square Hebrew Samaritan Hebrew Paleo/Original Hebrew Greek Numerical Value

a a 1

b b 2
g g 3
d d 4
h h 5
 w w 6
z z 7
x c 8
j j 9

y y 10

k k 20
l l 30
m m 40
n n 50
s s 60
p p 70
(80)
[ o 80
(70)
c x 90
q q 100
r r 200
f e 300
t t 400
The only differences in numerical value in the original Paleo Hebrew and all other dialects of Hebrew
and Aramaic is the value for p/p and [/[. In the Greek language, , which stood for c/c, was
abandoned early on, and so, when the Greek language was given numerical assigned values to the
letters of its alphabet, that letter was skipped over. This results in a discrepancy between Greek
gematria and Hebrew gematria. Nevertheless, due to the fact that Scripture such as the Epistle of
Barnabas sanctions and endorses the gematria of the Greek language as prophetic when applied to the
Scriptures, it may be perhaps suggested that God inspired the order of the Greek gematria. Or, it may
be suggested that the original Paleo Hebrew numerical values were not as I presented above, but rather
they were 0/1st, 1/2nd, 2/3rd, etc, instead of 1, 2, 3, etc. If this was the case, then that would make the first
ten letters and the letter [/[ matching in numerical value in each of the three numerical systems, and it
would make the last four letters of the Paleo Hebrew alphabet match in numerical value with the same
letters of the Greek alphabet. While this possible original Paleo Hebrew numerical system of Gematria
is mere speculation, it would best explain why the numerical system of Gematria in Greek would be
given credence; that is, because the numerical sequence of Greek would have 15 letters match out of
the original 22 letters (and one of those letters being omitted, this would mean that only six letters of
the Greek alphabet would diverge from the original Paleo Hebrew sequence, in contrast to the standard
numerical system of Gematria in Hebrew which would have eleven letters diverge from the original
sequence).

In some Hebrew inscriptions dated to the maccabean era, the numbers for 500-900 were as follows:
qt/qt=500
rt/rt=600
ft/ft=700
tt/tt=800
qtt/qtt=900.
If the original Paleo Hebrew order differed as I explained above, then instead it would have been:
ct/ct=400
qt/qt=500
rt/rt=600
ft/ft=700
tt/tt=800
ctt/ctt=900
or perhaps it would have been:
[t/[t=400
ct/ct=500
qt/qt=600
rt/rt=700
ft/ft=800
tt/tt=900
When the final forms had been introduced by Ezra, the system of using the five final forms as distinct
numerical values was also introduced, and gradually replacing the other system, it became:

$=500
~=600
!=700
@=800
#=900
In compounds, the letter r/r can be added to facilitate a better flowing sound. For example:

The name Abrem (also known as Abrhm/Abraham) is a name composed of two different words,
joining together and thereby forming a compound. But the middle letter is there to flow the sounds. If
r/r was not there, it would be be an awkward means of saying the two words: ~hba/mhba. So
notice that if it had been spelled ~hba/mhba it would have been pronounced: First syllable: Ap.
Second syllable: Em. But with the r/r, instead it is pronounced: First syllable: A. Second syllable:
Brem. Adding a r/r in between compounds allows for an alteration of syllabic emphasis, and it gives it
a meaning of flowing, or discharging from the first part of the word. So Abrem/Abraham was named
that name, because he was made into a father out of whom would flow/discharge a great multitude.
And thus, his name was ~hrba/mhrba (i.e Abrem). This spelling was also chosen as an intentional
play on words of Abrem's original heathen name: Abrim. According to the Book of Jubilees, Abrem
was given the name Abrim by his parents in honor of his mother's father, who was also named Abrim.
In other words, he was named after his grandfather. Likewise, Abrem's brother, Nihuwr (Nahor) was
named after their father's father, Nihuwr. In other words, Nihuwr was named after their other
grandfather. Abrem's brother, Erin (Haran), was named after the land of Erin (Haran) (probably because
that was the land that Tirah's family came from). Erin named his daughter Milkeh, which is the same
name that his great grandmother's name was (Siruwg married a woman named Milkeh). So we can see
they were all named after their family origins. And this is thus a further reason why Abrem's name was
changed from Abrim. Because changing it from Abrim to Apem would have lost the play on words that
had been intended. Similarly, we see that Siriy (Sarai) had her heathen name changed to Sireh (Sarah)
along similar play on words.

Thus, originally, in Paleo Hebrew, the letter r/r was only in between compounds to alter syllables and
give flowing connection. But in the process of time, the letter was added in regular words which were
not compounds, especially in Aramaic and other languages derived from Aramaic. It must be admitted
that it is possible that r/r was also used in the original Paleo Hebrew to alter syllables and give
flowing connection even in words that were not compounds. But if this was ever the case, any trace of
this in the Hebrew language has essentially vanished.

When pronouncing words, words are to be pronounced separately/distinctly from their prefixes and
suffixes. Thus: wnklmth/wnklmth is not to be pronounced as six syllables Et-m-l-k-nuw (Eh taw mi
law ki nuw), but rather it is to be pronounced as four syllables: Etm-l-knuw (Et mi lawk nuw).
However, the following: !klmt/nklmt is to be pronounced as four syllables: T-m-l-k-n (Taw mi lawk
in), since without the helping vowels, the sounds cannot coalesce. When two consecutive consonants
come together, one of two vowel sounds should be added: either I as in Fig, or aw as in Coleslaw. In
any word, the sound pronunciation focuses and centers on the first instance in which two consecutive
consonants come together; in that instance ih is to be pronounced between the two consonants.
Starting from that sound of ih, all surrounding instances of two consecutive consonants alternate
between the ih and aw sound in order. Thus in the word !klmt/nklmt, the sound is to be as
follows: the first two consecutive consonants are lm/lm, and therefore it is to be pronounced mil.
And then the two adjacent instances of two consecutive consonants are mt/mt and kl/kl. These are
to be pronounced respectively as tawm and lawk, since it must alternate to the aw sound on both
sides. Then, the final instance of two consecutive consonants occurs at the end of the word, and that is
!k/nk. This is to be pronounced kihn since this must of necessity alternate from the aw sound of
the two consecutive consonants preceding. And so this process of pronunciation is to occur in all
words. Two consecutive consonants are not to have a vowel sound in between if the two consonants are
each from two different roots in a compound/name, or if the two consecutive consonants are not part of
the root. The sounds ih and aw are only added in the roots because without them, the consonants
could not be pronounced. But in the cases of consonant prefixes and consonant suffixes being adjacent
to the consonants of the root word, if the consonants cannot be pronounced without a vowel in
between, then either an ih or aw sound must be added. But if the consonant can be pronounced as
part of a syllable that excludes the root word, then it does, and no vowel sound is to be added. This is
why wnklmth/wnklmth is pronounced Et mi lawk nuw rather than E taw mi law ki nuw, because
the initial t can be pronounced with the preceding letter, and the n at the end of the word can be
pronounced with the final letter uw. But for !klmt/nklmt, there is no letter preceding the initial t,
leaving that letter entirely unpronounceable unless the vowel aw sound is added immediately
following t. And likewise, the last letter, n, not having a letter that follows, is entirely unpronounceable
unless the vowel ih sound is added immediately preceding n.

If a root has as a noun a gender or number suffix, when possible, the letter is to be combined in sound
with the preceding letters.

Usually, this occurs with the plurals:

~yapr/myapr (two syllables: Ri vaim, not three syllables: Ri va kiym)

~yhla/myhla (two syllables: A leim, not three syllables: A le hiym)
~y[r/my[r (one syllable: Roim, not two syllables: Ro ghiym)
twabc/twabc (two syllables: Zhi baut, not three syllables: Zhi ba khuwt)
twhbg/twhbg (two syllables: Gi beut, not three syllables: Gi be huwt)
tw[bf/tw[bf (two syllables: Si bout, not three syllables: Si bo ghuwt)
This also occurs especially so with the feminine suffix: t/t. The suffixed letter if it is a t/t often
combines in sound with the preceding letters if such combination sounds proper.

One of the most striking examples of this coalescing of pronunciation occurring is the following (which
also exhibits one of the most striking examples of coalescing of letters in the entire Hebrew language):
the feminine gender of the word !b/nb in Hebrew is tb/tb; originally the feminine gender of this
word was spelled tnb/tnb. This loss of n/n did not occur nearly as often in any other Semitic
language, this being because the n/n in other Semitic languages tended to be enunciated as part of the
preceding syllable rather than as in Hebrew as part of the final syllable (as an example: Aramaic:
binawt instead of Paleo Hebrew: bint and Hebrew: bit). The etymological nature of the feminine gender
of this word is retained in its plural, in that upon pluralizing it, it gains back the missing n/n, hence
twnb/twnb. Observe: try pronouncing that sound bint very fast and softly, without trying to
emphasize the n sound. You can hear how the n sound sounds very faint, and almost silent.
Because of this tendency of the n to sound almost silent, it eventually became silent in the main
Hebrew speaking communities, and as a result, the n letter was removed. As an example, the English
words should and would today have a silent l in them. Since the l is now entirely lost in
pronunciation, one could write these words as shoud and woud and the meaning wouldn't be lost so
long as the people who used these shortened forms understood what these shorter spellings without the
silent l referred to.

Another example of this phenomenon is ~ynf/mynf and ynf/ynf and ~ytf/mytf and
ytf/ytf. All four are examples of the same word, with a different termination. Thus, in the case of
the feminine, instead of the standard h/h, a t/t is added, making tn/tn coalesce into just t/t to form
tf/tf. The second person pronouns are in Hebrew spelled ta/ta, but in all other Hebrew Semitic
languages (see for example Aramaic, Arabic, etc), they are spelled tna/tna. This ultimately signifies
that the word originated from the root !a/na rather than the root ta/ta. Another example of this
occuring, is with this Hebrew word: dxa/dxa. The feminine gender of this word is spelled
txa/txa. In the original Paleo Hebrew, it was spelled tdxa/tdxa.and it was pronounced
Kihawdit. Just like in the Latin language, longer spellings became truncated in spelling and
pronunciation, so also this occurred in Hebrew. As an example, vinculum in Latin is also
spelled/pronounced vinclum. Pronounce hawdit very fast; you can hear how the it sound when
combined with an immediately preceding d sound is very faint, and can easily be lost out in hearing,
and this is ultimately what happened and what caused later speakers of Hebrew to coalesce the sound.

There are instances in the Hebrew language (even in the Dead Sea Scrolls), where letters coalesce and
they either alter the letters being used, or cause some of the letters to be silent and thus omitted. For
example, in the original Paleo Hebrew, I say was originally spelled rmaa/rmaa. However, most of
the time, you will find it spelled rma/rma instead (the two a/a's combining into one). Likewise, this
also occurs in words with two consecutive y/y's, and in short, this can occur whenever there are two
consecutive instances of any letter of the Hebrew language. In the Dead Sea Scrolls two consecutive
letters occurs much more often than in other Hebrew speaking and writing communities of Jews. In
other words, the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls was much less likely to have abbreviations. But, even
so, the Scrolls contain coalescing of letters very often.

Another example of a change in spelling/pronunciation occurs in reflexive verbs. In those verbs, the
letter t/t that is prefixed (for the indication of the reflexive quality of the verb) undergoes different
transformations in certain instances. In the original Paleo Hebrew, this never happened, and that only
developed later as a tool to facilitate ease of pronunciation. The reflexive verbal forms in and of
themselves are very rare, and the instances in the Old Testament when such substitution is supposed to
occur are even rarer. Thus, trying to determine whether this phenomenon occurs in the Dead Sea
Scrolls in theory would be very difficult. However, I found at least one instance in the Dead Sea Scrolls
where this alteration of spelling in the reflexive prefix occurs. In the instances that a verb which begins
with certain letters is in an Active Reflexive form, in order to avoid conflation of the pronunciation of
letters, transposition, substitution, and/or deletion generally/usually occurs in Hebrew. The rules for
when to apply when this phenomena occurs are as follows: If a verb begins with a f or a s, and it is a
reflexive verb (requiring thus the reflexive prefix), instead of th being prefixed to the verb as fth or
sth, the first letter would be prefixed, and the second letter would be transposed to follow
immediately after. Thus: tfh and tsh. If a verb begins with a z, it should be rendered as dzh as
opposed to zth. If a verb begins with a c, it should be rendered as jch as opposed to cth. And
finally, if a verb begins with either a t, d, or j, then it is to be rendered respectively as th, dh, and
jh, as opposed to tth, dth, and jth. Once again, this phenomenon never occurred in the original
Paleo Hebrew, but only came into existence via later speakers to facilitate ease of pronunciation. These
pronunciation changes also occur in the other reflexive forms of the verb (ie the passive reflexive and
the middle reflexive forms).

Originally, Paleo Hebrew was full of vowels. However, other Semitic languages and later dialects of
Hebrew often removed the vowels. This paucity of vowels is very extensive in the Masoretic Hebrew
text. The Hebrew text constantly removes the vowel letters and replaces them with vowel markings.
The Dead Sea Scrolls are most illuminating and instructive in informing us what many of the original
vowel letters were in the Hebrew text. The Samaritan Hebrew of the Law of Moses also provides
another very important witness for many of the original vowel letters of the Hebrew text of the Law of
Moses.

Thus we see often that the masculine plural is written as ~/m instead of ~y/my and the feminine plural
is written as t/t instead of tw/tw. There are many other examples in other books of the Old Testament
as well in which other vowel letters were removed and replaced with vowel marks. However, when this
happens, it is almost always the case that what is removed is either the letter wuw (w/w) or the letter
yuwd (y/y). The vowel markings that replace wuw are oand this dot next to waw: W, and the vowel
markings that replace yuwd are I and (although not as often) eand (even less often) , (as an example:
Genesis 1:14 troaom and ttoaol in the Masoretic Hebrew text is written in the Samaritan Hebrew text
twrwam and twtal; you can see how the scribes have replaced the vowels in their Hebrew copies of
Genesis with vowel markings). A good guide to determining if the Hebrew text is missing a vowel is to
look at the grammar; if the grammar of the passage is simply not making sense without the vowel
letters, look out for these vowel marks, and if you see them, it is very likely that the scribes removed
the vowel letters and replaced them with the vowel markings. The omission of vowels occurs very
often with a/a as well. The Dead Sea Scrolls have a much freer and fuller usage of these vowel letters,
approaching much closer to the original state of the Hebrew language than the Masoretic Hebrew text.
Preview of what I am working on for more of the grammar: Originally Paleo Hebrew had
declensions/cases just like the other ancient languages like Greek, Latin, and Sanskrit, and like some of
the other Semitic languages such as Akkadian and Arabic. Certain forms of Aramaic, Arabic, and
Akkadian strongly suggest that the Paleo Hebrew language originally had a full case system and
structure. This case system was completely reformed and altered just like happened with English losing
its case system from Old English (in Old English, there was a full case system and structure). Because
of the case system all but disappearing and leaving very few traces of it in the Hebrew text, attempting
to restore the full case system may be considered tentative at best. That being so, I am confident that
what I have reconstructed below approximates very closely to the original case system of the Paleo
Hebrew language (I will provide a full explanation following the forms):

Indef Indef Indef Def Def Def

Mas Fem Neut Mas Fem Neut
Nom $lm/klm hklm/hklm aklm/aklm aklm/aklm atklm/atklm anklm/anklm
Sing

Acc taklm/taklm tatklm tanklm/tanklm taklmh/taklmh tatklmh tanklmh

Sing /tatklm /tatklmh /tanklmh
Gen $lm/klm tklm/tklm !klm/nklm $lmh/klmh tklmh/tklmh !klmh
Sing /nklmh
Nom ~yklm/myklm twklm/twklm !yklm/nyklm ayklm/ayklm awklm/awklm ayklm
Plur /ayklm
Acc tayklm/tayklm tawklm tayklm/tayklm tayklmh tawklmh/tawklm tayklmh
Plur /tawklm /tayklmh /tayklmh
Gen yklm/yklm wklm/wklm yklm/yklm yklmh/yklmh wklmh/wklmh yklmh
Plur /yklmh
Nom ~ytklm/mytklm twyklm !ytklm/nytklm aytklm/aytklm awyklm/twyklm aytklm
Dua /twyklm /ayklm
Acc taytklm tawyklm taytklm taytklmh tawyklmh taytklmh
Dua /taytklm /tawyklm /taytklm /taytklm /tawyklmh /tayklmh
Gen ytklm/ytklm wyklm/wyklm ytklm/ytklm ytklmh/ytklmh wyklmh/wyklmh ytklmh
Dua /ytklmh
Voc $lmh/klmh hklmh aklmh/aklmh aklmh/aklmh atklmh anklmh
Sing /hklmh /atklmh /anklmh

Dat $lml/klml hklml aklml/aklml aklml/aklml atklml anklml

Sing /hklml /atklml /anklml

Abl $lmm/klmm hklmm aklmm/aklmm aklmm/aklmm atklmm anklmm

Sing /hklmm /atklmm /anklmm

Loc hklm/hklm htklm hnklm/hnklm hklmh/hklmh htklmh hnklmh

Sing /htklm /htklmh /hnklmh
Instr hklb/hklb htklb hnklb/hnklb hklmb/hklmb htklmb hnklmb
Sing /htklb /htklmb /hnklmb
Voc ~yklmh twklmh !yklmh/nyklmh ayklmh/ayklmh awklmh/awklmh ayklmh
Plur /myklmh /twklmh /ayklmh
Dat ~yklml twklml !yklml/nyklml ayklml/ayklml awklml/awklml ayklml
Plur /myklml /twklml /ayklml
Abl ~yklmm twklmm !yklmm/nyklmm ayklmm/ayklmm awklmm/awklmm ayklmm
Plur /myklmm /twklmm /ayklmm
Loc hyklm/hyklm hwklm hyklm/hyklm hyklmh hwklmh/hwklmh hyklmh
Plur /hwklm /hyklmh /hyklmh
Instr ~yklmb twklmb !yklmb/nyklmb ayklmb/ayklmb awklmb/awklmb ayklmb
Plur /myklmb /twklmb /ayklmb
Voc ~ytklmh twyklmh !ytklmh aytklmh awyklmh aytklmh
Dua /mytklmh /twyklmh /nytklmh /aytklmh /twyklmh /ayklmh
Dat ~ytklml twyklml !ytklml aytklml awyklml aytklml
Dual /mytklml /twyklml /nytklml /aytklml /twyklml /ayklml
Abl ~ytklmm twyklmm !ytklmm aytklmm awyklmm aytklmm
Dua /mytklmm /twyklmm /nytklmm /aytklmm /twyklmm /ayklmm
Loc hytklm/hytklm hwyklm hytklm hytklmh/hytkl hwyklmh hytklmh
Dua /hwyklm /hytklm /hwyklmh /hytklmh
mh
Instr ~ytklmb twyklmb !ytklmb aytklmb awyklmb aytklmb
Dua /mytklmb /twyklmb /nytklmb /aytklmb /twyklmb /ayklmb

These are the main cases. There are other cases, but I have provided these examples chiefly due to the
fact that the standard division of language is made into 8 cases. For Hebrew, there are really only three
cases, with all other cases being variations of one of the three cases. (To be continued and heavily
updated with much more detail and information)