tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9284142.post7136353218615902221..comments2018-11-04T15:47:52.653-08:00Comments on The Wadi el-Hol Translation: Wadi el-Hol Hoax...Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9284142.post-62101841951108302432016-02-15T22:35:36.759-08:002016-02-15T22:35:36.759-08:00I was looking at the charts and there clearly have...I was looking at the charts and there clearly have to be several revisions to accord with Wadi el-Hol more likely being from the 14th Century BCE.<br /><br />Since T_ is no longer evidenced before $, T_ must have essentially lacked an independent T_ after being transferred from the original affricated dialect to the Wadi dialect; so that is a probably Egyptian-influenced derivation at least by the 14th Century BCE. The entire D_ premise should be withdrawn. That leaves the Z premise on shakier ground (though unlike with D_, not the identifications). Because W at Sinai is arguably ambiguous (to my memory), that might still have a unified origin - with the more staff-like crescent W appearing in Canaanite later (around the same time the slitted moon appears at Wadi el-Hol), each outgrowths of an oblong shape with a stump-outgrowth.Michael Sheflinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09591277507186542186noreply@blogger.com