Semitic Alphabets
Semitic Alphabets
Last updated:
17-Feb-2022 at 19:13
Bible chronology main page
(See History.)
Rick Aschmann
© Richard P. Aschmann
(biblechronology.net/SemiticAlphabets.pdf)
Table of Contents
1 Semitic Alphabets in North Semitic Alphabetical Order ..........................................................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Proto-Semitic...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4
1.2 Proto-Sinaitic Alphabet ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4
1.3 Fonts................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5
1.4 Reordering of Letters .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5
1.5 Arabic ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 6
2 The Outcome of the Three Fricatives /š/ [ʃ], /ṯ/ [θ], and /ś/ [ɬ] in the Various Alphabets and Languages .................................................................................................6
2.1 The History of Some Semitic Fricatives ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 8
3 Hebrew Sounds Retained in the Spoken Language but not Adequately Represented in the Phoenician/Hebrew Alphabet .....................................................................9
4 Aramaic Sounds Retained in the Spoken Language but not Adequately Represented in the Alphabet................................................................................................... 10
5 A. G. Lundin’s reconstruction of “Linear Ugaritic” ............................................................................................................................................................................... 12
6 Semitic Alphabets in South Semitic Alphabetical Order ........................................................................................................................................................................ 14
Most Semitic alphabets are actually abjads, and only include consonants, not vowels. These alphabets all seem to have come from a single source (see commentary
below) except for Akkadian, which used a cuneiform syllabary rather than an abjad. (In the charts below I only list its consonants, not its actual writing system.) It is an
East Semitic language: the East Semitic languages underwent more early changes than any of the other languages, and were never written with an alphabet or abjad, but
rather with a cuneiform syllabary that was totally unrelated to any of these alphabets.
1. *ʾ ʔ – 17. �� 𐩱 13. አ ʾälf 1. 𐎀,𐎀 ʾa ʔa alpa 1. , 1. A a ʾalp ox-head 1. A a ʾalp ox 1. 𐤀 1. א 1. ʔ ʾaleph ox 1. א 1. ʾ 1. א 1. ʾ 1. أ ʾ ʔ
5. *d d 4. d 5. D d digg fish
(see sup-
11. �𐩪 7. ሰ sat 19. 𐎒,𐎒 s s samka 19. Colless)
samk
port 15. 𐤎 15. ס 16. s samekh support 15. ס 18. s 15. ס 16. s 15. س s s
19. *ʿ ʕ – 18. �
�𐩲 16. ዐ ʿäyn 20. 𐎓,𐎓 ʿ ʕ ʿain 20. 18. E e ʿên eye 19. E ʿên eye 16. 𐤏 16. ע 17. ʕ ʿayin eye 16. ע 19. ʿ 16. ע 17. ʿ 16. ع ʿ ʕ
20. *p p 14. p 21. 19. P p piʾt corner?
24. *r ɾ 17. r 8. �
� 𐩧 6. ረ rəʾs 24. 𐎗,𐎗 r r raša 24. , 22. R r raʾš head 23. R r raʾš head 20. 𐤓 20. ר 21. r resh head 20. ר 24. r 20. ר 21. r 20. ر r ɾ
com-
25. *ṯ θ2 ↓ 27. �� 𐩻 7. ሰ s 25. 𐎘,𐎘 ṯ θ ṯanna 25. 23. t ṯann posite 24. t ṯad breast ↓ ↓ 21. ש 25. ṯ (22. )ת (t ) 28. ث th θ
bow
25. (see
26. *š ʃ2 18. š 15. �� 𐩯 7. ሰ s 24. V v šimš sun
Colless)
šimš sun (15. )س s s
13. 𐎌,𐎌 š ʃ šin 13. 21. �
� 21. ש 22. ʃ shin tooth 21. ש 26. š 21. ש 22. š
com-
27. *ś ɬ2 ↑ 7. �� 𐩦 5. ሠ śäwt (30. 𐎝,𐎝 3 ś) (s ) śu (28. ) (24. t ṯann posite (25. t ṯad Breast) ↑ 21. ש 23. ɬ sin 21. [שɬ] 27. ś (15. )ס (s ) 21. ش sh ʃ
bow)
28. *ġ ʁ – 22. �𐩶 16. ዐ ʿ 26. 𐎙,𐎙 ġ ɣ ġain 26. , 25. F ġa ? 26. ? ġinab grape (16. 𐤏) 16. ע 24. ʁ 16. ע 28. ġ (16. )ע 23. ġ 23. غ gh ʁ
owner’s owner’s
29. *t t 19. t 10. �
�𐩩 10. ተ täwe 27. 𐎚,𐎚 t t to 27. 26. T taw
mark
27. T taw
mark 22. 𐤕 22. ת 25. t taw mark 22. ת 29. t 22. ת 24. ṯ/t 22. ت t t
28. 𐎛,𐎛 ʾi ʔi i
29. 𐎜,𐎜 ʾu ʔu u
(see row
30. 𐎝,𐎝 s2(ś) śu 28. 27. *ś above)
1
In Wiktionary names are provided for most of these letters, though meanings and Ugaritic spellings are not provided. However, it turns out that these names are merely reconstructions,
mainly from the later Phoenician/Hebrew names, or in a few cases are simply the syllable pronunciations, at least according to this page. Even so, apparently these reconstructions are based
on good evidence that Ugaritic really did have names for their letters, and that we know for certain at least the first syllable of most of the letters, based on a tablet called KTU 5.14, which
contains most of the letters with a corresponding Akkadian equivalent showing this first syllable. This tablet and the conclusions drawn from it are shown on this page.
2
See The Outcome of the Three Fricatives /š/ [ʃ], /ṯ/ [θ], and /ś/ [ɬ] to understand the ins and outs of these sounds and the letters used to represent them.
3
This letter was apparently not used in Ugaritic to represent a separate sound, but based on its appearance in the South Semitic alphabetical order, it was evidently intended to write the [ɬ]
sound in other Semitic languages, corresponding to the sound traditionally transcribed as /ś/ in Hebrew and in Proto-Semitic.
gaml “throwing stick” → gimel “camel” I’m skeptical about this one, that it ever meant camel, as is Wikipedia: it looks like all they did was flip the symbol, so
I left them all on one line!
digg “fish” → dalet “door”
hll “jubilation” → he “window”
ziqq “manacle” → zayin “weapon” Apparently ziqq was originally ḏiqq, and was the name of the letter pronounced /ḏ/, which later merged with /z/ in
Canaanite.
naḥš “snake” → nun “fish” According to this page, only the name was changed, not the symbol.
piʾt “corner” → pe “mouth”
šimš “sun” → šin “tooth” See The Outcome of the Three Fricatives /š/ [ʃ], /ṯ/ [θ], and /ś/ [ɬ] below.
I have not yet studied Colless’s article and data sufficiently to do the same for it, but I have colored his letters green when they disagree with Albright, etc., and
have tried to arrange them in this system as well.
1.3 Fonts
The Aegean font used for Ugaritic was found on this page. The MPH 2B Damase font used for Ugaritic and Phoenician was found on this page. The two fonts
used for the Old Yemeni or South Semitic Alphabet (Sabaic and Qatabanic styles) were found on this page. However, since I have now posted this file in PDF format, all
fonts should appear correctly for all users without having to download them.
1.4 Reordering of Letters
Arabic letters in red are normally at the end of the alphabet, as the numbering shows, but I have arranged them to show their relation to Ugaritic, since these two
languages retained more of the original Semitic consonants than did most Canaanite languages (including Phoenician and Hebrew). These letters were placed at the end
because the Arabic Alphabet was derived from the Aramaic Alphabet (essentially identical to the Hebrew Alphabet), but since this alphabet did not have all of the sounds
in Arabic, these six letters were invented just for Arabic.
Because of the complex way in which phonemes have merged, I have also moved two of the Ugaritic phonemes out of their place in the alphabetical order, and
have marked them in red also. (See Footnote 2 above for an explanation of the red letter in the Proto-Sinaitic column.)
Proto-Semitic Sounds which were Retained in Arabic, but with significant pronunciation change.
Proto- IPA Arabic Trans- IPA
Sem- Alpha- liter-
itic bet ation
3. *g ɡ 3. ج j ɡ This is pronounced [dʒ] in most Arabic varieties, but is still [ɡ] in Egyptian Arabic.
17. *ṱ θʼ/ tθʼ 24. ظ ẓ zˤ
20. *p p 17. ف f f
22. *ṣ́ ɬʼ/ tɬʼ 25. ض ḍ dˤ
27. *ś ɬ 21. ش sh ʃ
Thus all cases of 26. */š/ [ʃ] became a simple [s] in Arabic, merging with existing [s], but then all cases of 27. */ś/ [ɬ] changed to [ʃ], which corresponded to a sound
in Hebrew which later came out as [s], which is terribly confusing!
2 The Outcome of the Three Fricatives /š/ [ʃ], /ṯ/ [θ], and /ś/ [ɬ]
in the Various Alphabets and Languages
Based on its shape and pronunciation, the Phoenician letter 21. � (pronounced /š/ [ʃ]), from which came the Hebrew letter ש, used for two Hebrew consonants ש
(/š/ [ʃ]) and ( ש/ś/ [ɬ]), was apparently derived from Ugaritic 13. 𐎌/𐎌 (/š/ [ʃ] šin), but it is placed alphabetically in the place of Ugaritic 25. 𐎘/𐎘 (/ṯ/ [θ] ṯanna). (I don’t
know why the two different fonts show such incredibly distinct forms for Ugaritic 25; the former seems to be the right one, and neither looks anything like the Phoenician
or Hebrew letter.) However, both Phoenician 21. � (/š/ [ʃ]) and Ugaritic 13. 𐎌/𐎌 (/š/ [ʃ] šin) look a lot like the Proto-Sinaitic letter t, which was evidently pronounced
as either /ś/ [ɬ] or as /ṯ/ [θ], not as /š/ [ʃ], and both Albright and Colless list a different letter for /š/ [ʃ]. So how do we make sense of this?
Now the Old Yemeni or South Semitic Alphabet, and its variant the Old North Arabian alphabet, contain symbols for all of these sounds, in fact for all of the
original Proto-Semitic consonants, so the simplest solution might be to assume that the South-Semitic alphabet represents the Proto-Alphabet from which all of the others
came. The problem is that in the South-Semitic alphabet the symbol 7. 𐩦 � is used to represent neither /š/ [ʃ] nor /ṯ/ [θ], but /ś/ [ɬ], precisely the sound that was lost in both
South Canaanite and Ugaritic!
However, it is precisely the variations in the two alphabetical orders, North Semitic and South Semitic, that suggest an explanation and confirm that the South Se-
mitic alphabet is probably the original. In the South Semitic Alphabet letter 7. 𐩦 � represents /ś/ [ɬ] and letter 15. 𐩯 � represents /š/ [ʃ], but in the South Semitic
alphabetical order established for the Ugaritic alphabet this order is reversed: letter 7. 𐎌/𐎌 represents /š/ [ʃ] and letter 15. 𐎝/𐎝 was apparently intended to represent /ś/ [ɬ]
in other languages, even though Ugaritic had lost this sound. And as we saw above, the Phoenician alphabet also shows a change in the alphabetical order for the
Phoenician letter 21. � /š/ [ʃ]. To me this suggests that the Old Yemeni or South Semitic Alphabet shows us the original use of the letters it contains, but that the symbol �
or �, originally used for the sound /ś/ [ɬ], was later reassigned to a different sound in Ugaritic, which no longer had the /ś/ [ɬ] sound, and replaced the original symbol for
/š/ [ʃ].
In Phoenician this new symbol 21. � for /š/ [ʃ] ended up being the only symbol that was retained, since /ṯ/ [θ] and /ś/ [ɬ] had both fallen together with /š/ [ʃ].
However, Hebrew (and North Canaanite in general) did not lose /ś/ [ɬ], but because Phoenician ended up being the parent alphabet for Hebrew, this symbol 21. � had to do
double duty for both /š/ [ʃ] and /ś/ [ɬ]. (See Hebrew Sounds Retained in the Spoken Language.)
Perhaps the table on the next page entitled “The History of Some Semitic Fricatives” can help clarify the situation.
(In the table, unless specified otherwise, I obtained the Proto-Semitic and Hebrew forms of possible letter names from ahdictionary.com/word/semitic.html and
from shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in:8080/jspui/bitstream/10603/37097/2/appendices.pdf. The connection of “ ָׁשנָׁ הbend” with */ṯann/ “composite bow” is mostly guesswork,
but the second link does confirm that this verb had */ṯ/ [θ] in Proto-Semitic.)
Brian Colless has a different opinion about the meaning, names, and origin of the symbols used, but otherwise his analysis agrees with the arrangement in the ta-
ble.
Proto- Proto-Semitic Proto- Old Proto-Sinaitic Later Ugaritic Phoenician North Lun-
Semitic Form of Alpha- North and South Sym- (Far-North Canaanite din’s
Probable Later bet (& Ara- Canaanite bol Canaanite) & Hebrew “Proto-
Letter Name South bian Use Alpha-
Semit- Sym- bet”
ic)a bol
(Only one symbol
26. */š/ [ʃ] *śamš “sun”→šamš b 15. 𐩯� � 16. V šimš “sun” (symbol lost) ֶׁש ֶׁמש/ˈšemeš/
retained)
13. 𐎌/𐎌 /š/ [ʃ] šin 21. � /š/ [ʃ] shin ש/š/ [ʃ] shin
*šinn “tooth” 7. 𐩦� � 13.
“tooth” “tooth” “tooth” ( ֵׁ֖שןšên)
*ṯann (sounds � or t: ṯann 25. 𐎘/𐎘 /ṯ/ [θ] ṯanna ( ָׁשנָׁ ה/šāˈnāh/
25. */ṯ/ [θ] 27. 𐩻� � 28. 27. 𐩻� � 25.
“composite bow” merged “composite bow” “composite bow” “to bend”???)
*ṯad “female in South or ṯad “female ַׁשדšaḏ “female
breast(s)” Canaanite breast(s)” breast(s)”
Original name and Uga- (Pronunciation (� symbol
unknown, possibly ritic, both uncertain, eitherreassigned
śäwt (Ge’ez alphabet), symbols /ṯ/ [θ] or /ś/ [ɬ])
to a different
27. */ś/ [ɬ] 7. 𐩦� � 7. ש/ś/ [ɬ] śin [ˈɬin]
or first syllable possibly retained sound with
śu1 (Ugaritic alphabet), for a time?) a new name)
meaning unknown
in either case. (new symbol created for Ugaritic) (30. 𐎝/𐎝) 28.
Note that none of these sounds was the same as the simple [s] sound, which was quite distinct and experienced no changes:
ס/s/ [s] samekh
21. 𐤎 /s/ [s] samekh
18. */s/ [s] ? 11. 𐩪� � 11. 𐩪� � 19. 𐎒/𐎒 /s/ [s] samka ( ָׁס ַׁמךsāˈmaḵ a)
“support”
“to lean, support”
However, much later, well after the completion of the Old Testament, Hebrew ש/ś/ [ɬ] changed to [s], giving שand סthe same pronunciation.
a
I show the South Semitic symbols here, because this is the only alphabet that retained the full inventory, but this alphabet was developed for a Northwest-Semitic language, probably
Proto-Sinaitic, not for a South Semitic language. The importance of this is seen in the next footnote.
b
See the box above entitled The Proto-Alphabet Letter 15. 𐩯 � and its Unique History for an explanation of this letter’s name.
The Hebrew word ֵׁ֖ב ֶׁשם/ˈbōśem/ [ˈboːɬem] is quite frequent in the Old Testament, usually translated “spice” in modern translations, but the Greek word βάλσαμον
is not used to translate it in either the Septuagint or the Greek New Testament.
The Greek word Χαλδαῖοι derives from the Akkadian, in which Proto-Semitic *[ɬ] is normally realized as /š/ [ʃ], but according to William Barrick: “Akkadian
scholars have long recognized a peculiarity of the Akkadian language: the phenomenon of a phonetic shift of the sibilant ( ש/ś/ [ɬ]) to a lamed when the sibilant is followed
by a dental ( ד/d/).” This is not surprising given the original pronunciation, but would make little sense with a pronunciation of /š/ [ʃ].
However, it seems that Hebrew actually retained 25 consonant phonemes, as seen in the IPA column to the right of the Hebrew Alphabet Column in the large chart
above, not just 23, using חand עto write two consonant phonemes each. The reason they only wrote with 22 letters is because they adopted the Phoenician alphabet to
write Hebrew, and the Phoenician dialect of Canaanite had already reduced its consonant inventory to 22. The following chart is taken from
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Hebrew_language#Consonants, but I have modified it to make it easier to read:
c
This dotting was not used to distinguish these two sounds until the second half of the first millennium A.D., so the distinction was only maintained orally up to that time, just as it was for
the two pronunciations of חand ע. The difference is that the latter merged into one sound each before the dotting was invented, whereas the pronunciation distinction of שand שis still
maintained today.
d
It might seem that the story of “shibboleth” ש ֹּ֜בלֶת/šibˈbōleṯ/ and “sibboleth” ס ֹּ֗בלֶת/sibˈbōleṯ/ in Judges 12:6 provides evidence that these sounds were already merging at the time of the
judges, and that the merger had progressed farther in some regions than in others. However, this is an apparent case of the merger of ש/š/ [ʃ] and ס/s/ [s], not of ש/ś/ [ɬ] and ס/s/ [s],
which is confusing, since there is no evidence that ש/š/ [ʃ] and ס/s/ [s] had merged in any Northwest Semitic language of this period, according to Hendel (jstor.org/stable/1357296), and
they are still clearly distinguished in Hebrew today. However, Hendel’s article provides a proposed solution, which turns out to have no bearing on our discussion here.
e
In this example the tongue is not pulled back as much as it is for [ɬ] in most of the languages that use it, but it is still clearly [ɬ] rather than [s].
f
In Hebrew and Aramaic the text between slashes is the traditional transliteration, which matches the written Hebrew form with a late (Tiberian) pronunciation, whereas the text between / /
is the probable real pronunciation in IPA. I have not always been able to complete this information for Aramaic.
“…these phonemes are also distinguished consistently in the Septuagint of the Pentateuch…, but this becomes more sporadic in later books and is generally absent
in Ezra and Nehemiah.”
Numerous examples can also be found in the Greek New Testament:
Later Examples
Proto-Semitic Arabic Greek
Hebrew Hebrew f
Early pron. Late pron. Arabic g Greek meaning
*/ḫ/ [χ] [χ] خ [x] χ ָׁרחל/rāˈḥêl/ [raːˈχeːl] [raːˈħeːl] ([ )راحیلraːˈħiːl]) Ῥαχήλ [r̥axéːl] Rachel
ח/ḥ/ [ħ]
*/ḥ/ [ħ] [ħ] ح — י ְׂצ ָׁחק/yiṣˈḥāq/ [yisˤˈħaːq] [yisˤˈħaːq] [ إسحقʔisˈħaːq] Ἰσαάκ [isaák] Isaac
ַׁעזָׁ ה/ʿazˈzâ/` [ʁazˈzaːh] [ʕazˈzaːh] ˈ[ غزةɣazzah] Γάζα [ɡáza] Gaza
*/ġ/ [ʁ] [ʁ] غ [ɡ] γ מֹורה
ָׁ ע/ʿămōˈrâ/ [ʁamoːˈraːh] [ʕamoːˈraːh] ([ عمورةʕamuːˈrah]) Γόμοῤῥα [ɡɔ́mɔr̥a] Gomorrah
ע/ʿ/ [ʕ] Χοδολλογομόρ
ְׂכ ָׁד ְׂרלָׁ ֹ֙ע ֶׁמ ֹ֙ר/kədārəlāˈʿōmer /[kədaːrəlaːˈʁoːmer] /[kədaːrəlaːˈʕoːmer] Chedorlaomer
[xɔdollɔɡɔmɔ́ɾ]
*/ʿ/ [ʕ] [ʕ] ع — ע ָׁשו/ʿēˈśāw/ [ʕēˈɬaːw] [ʕēˈɬaːw] [ عِیسُوʕiˈsu] Ἠσαῦ [eːsâu] Esau
Thus these four phonemes were still distinguished at the time of the writing of the Septuagint, in the 3rd century B.C., after the completion of the Old Testament,
and it seems probable that the [ɬ] pronunciation of שwas retained to around that time also. However, by the time the Masoretes developed their diacritic system for clarify-
ing the pronunciation of Tiberian Hebrew in the second half of the first millennium A.D., these distinctions had been lost, and these sounds had their Later Hebrew
pronunciation.
g
Those examples in parenthesis in Arabic do not have the expected letter, but since these are names, they were probably borrowed from Hebrew at a late stage.
Thus of all the alphabets listed here, Aramaic’s was the one least suited to the language it represented, with 29 consonants in Early Aramaic and 24 in Later Ara-
maic being represented by only 22 letters. (Like Hebrew there was a distinction between the sounds later written as שand שin the Aramaic sections of the Old Testament,
but as in Hebrew these dots were not added until the second half of the first millennium A.D.) Those extra consonant sounds that were not distinguished are marked in pink
on the chart.
The following are Lundin’s rules for how the Linear Ugaritic letters were transformed into cuneiform, sometimes rephrased by me to make them clearer. The
numbers represent the consonant numbers in the chart. To really understand how the rules work, you need to read the article.
Rule 1: A circle in Linear Ugaritic is represented by the angle wedge in Ugaritic cuneiform (10, 18, 20, 23, 25; Figure 1).
Rule 2: A straight line (or a line with an appendix) in Linear Ugaritic is represented by a wedge in Ugaritic cuneiform. Vertical and horizontal lines retain their ori-
entation, but oblique lines are shown in various ways.
Rule 3: A broken or curved line in Linear Ugaritic is represented by three successive wedges in Ugaritic cuneiform (17, 4, 11). (However, sometimes three succes-
sive wedges represent a straight line of three segments as in 5.) Figure 3 shows both cases.
Rule 4: Two parallel wedges in Ugaritic cuneiform usually represent an angle in Linear Ugaritic, not parallel lines (21, 18, 19, 12, 24; Figure 4, misnumbered as
Figure 5).
Rule 5: Crossed lines in Linear Ugaritic are represented by two wedges meeting at a right angle (10, 15?; Figure 5, misnumbered as Figure 4). The rest of this rule
seems confusing to me, or based on only one real example.
These rules are unidirectional: the cuneiform letters can be derived from the linear letters, but not the reverse. Thus Lundin had to use all of the known linear al-
phabets as well as the cuneiform to help him reconstruct the presumed original alphabets.
In the chart below, PA, Lundin’s reconstructed “Proto-Alphabet”, is essentially the same as the Proto-Sinaitic Alphabet, which others have estimated from the 17th
–13th century B.C., except that Lundin claims it had symbols for the full 29 consonants of Proto-Semitic. However, in his chart he does not list *ṣ́ [ɬʼ/tɬʼ], because this is
the one phoneme which had no symbol in the Ugaritic alphabet. Lundin recognizes this, though he calls this phoneme /ḍ/, which is actually its Arabic reflex. Presumably
its South Semitic form is the only information we have on this letter, so I have added this at the bottom of the chart.
Beside Lundin’s chart I am showing each Ugaritic consonant in two different fonts. The first font (“Aegean”) is usually closer to Lundin’s analysis, and also seems
to be the standard form; the second is the one I have originally used everywhere else in this article, though I have now included both.
Beside these I also show the corresponding South Semitic (Old Yemeni) consonant, again in two different fonts, corresponding to the Sabaic and Qatabanic varia-
tions. Lundin seems to have mostly followed the Sabaic forms. As expected, the one Proto-Semitic consonant not listed is 22. *ṣ́ [ɬʼ/tɬʼ], corresponding to South Semitic 19.
South Semitic symbol 27. 𐩻 �, which corresponds to Ugaritic 25. */ṯ/ [θ], looks quite different from Lundin’s symbol , but apparently Lundin’s was a standard
variation, since it matches the Old North Arabian symbol 28. ..
South Semitic 29. 𐩼 �, which corresponds to Ugaritic 18. */ṯ/ [θʼ], is also a bit different from Lundin’s symbol , though its correspondence looks plausible.
1. 𐎀 𐎀 17. �
� 𐩱 1. 𐎏𐎏
16. 25. �� 𐩹 16.
2. 𐎁 𐎁 9. � 𐩨 2.
3. 𐎂 𐎂 20. �
� 𐩴 3. 17.𐎐 𐎐 13. �� 𐩬 17.
4. 𐎃 𐎃 14. � 𐩭 4. 18.𐎑 𐎑 29. �
� 𐩼 18.
5. 𐎄 𐎄 21. �� 𐩵 5. 19.𐎒 𐎒 11. � 𐩪 19.
6. 𐎅 𐎅 1. � � 6. 20.𐎓 𐎓 18. �
� 𐩲 20.
7. 𐎆𐎆 6. � 𐩥 7. 21.𐎔 𐎔 16. �
� 𐩰 21.
8. 𐎇 𐎇 24. � 𐩸 8. 22.𐎕 𐎕 28. � 𐩮 22.
9. 𐎈 𐎈 3. � 𐩢 � 9. 23.𐎖 𐎖 5. �� 𐩤 23.
10. 𐎉 𐎉 23. �
� 𐩷 10. 24.𐎗𐎗 8. � � 𐩧 24.
11. 𐎊 𐎊 26. �� 𐩺 11. 25.𐎘 𐎘 27. �� 𐩻 25.
12. 𐎋 𐎋 12. � 𐩫 12. 26.𐎙 𐎙 22. � 𐩶 26.
13. 𐎌 𐎌 7. �� 𐩦 13.
27.𐎚 𐎚 10. �
� 𐩩 27.
14. 𐎍𐎍 2. �� 𐩡 14. 28.𐎛 𐎛
17. �
� 𐩱 (1.)
15. 𐎎 𐎎
4. �� 𐩣 15. 29.𐎜 𐎜
Colors used:
Red: Letters which have been moved out of their standard alphabetical order in order to show their correspondence with the Old Yemeni or South Semitic
Alphabet.
Pink: New letters not derived from previous alphabets, representing innovative consonant sounds.
Yellow: Consonant sounds which were lost in a particular language, showing what other consonant they merged with. (Also used for letter names that are
assumed to not reflect the actual names in a particular alphabet, as explained above.)
The only languages that still use a form of the South Semitic Alphabet today are those spoken in Ethiopia, which use modifications of the Ge’ez alphabet. As an
example of these I have included the Amharic alphabet. It still retains all of the letters in the Ge’ez alphabet, even though it has lost (or merged) a number of the sounds. It
is actually a syllabary, with the vowels attached in various ways to the original Ge’ez letters, but I have listed the original forms without an attached vowel (which in the
Amharic syllabary actually represent syllables with the vowel normally transliterated as ä).
� 1. ሀ 1. ሀ h
1. *h h [h] 1. � h h he 1. heh h h hoy 1. 𐎅/𐎅 h h ho 6
2. � 2. ለ 2. ለ l
2. *l l [l] 𐩡 l l lamedh 2. lam l l läwe 2. 𐎍/𐎍 l l lamda 14
ħ [ħ] ḥ ħ 3. ሐ ḥ ħ ḥäwt 3. ሐ ḥ ħ
3. *ḥ 3. � 𐩢 heth 3. hah h 3. 𐎈/𐎈 ḥota 9
meem 4. መ 4. መ
4. *m m [m] 4. � 𐩣 m m mem 4. m m may m 4. 𐎎/𐎎 m m mem 15
kʼ [kʼ] 5. � 8. ቀ ḳ kʼ ḳaf 9. ቀ kʼ
5. *ḳ 𐩤� q q qoph 5. qaf 5. 𐎖/𐎖 q q qopa 23
ɬ 7. � ɬ 5. ሠ ś ɬ śäwt 5. ሠ s š ʃ
7. *ś [ɬ] 𐩦 s 2 shin 7. es-2 7. 𐎌/𐎌 4 šin 13
ɾ 8. � 6. ረ 6. ረ r
8. *r [r] 𐩧 r r resh 8. reh r r rəʾs 8. 𐎗/𐎗 r r raša 24
9. � 9. በ 10. በ b
9. *b b [b] 𐩨 b b beth 9. beh b b bet 14. 𐎁/𐎁 b b beta 2
ɡ ɡ 20. ገ ɡ 27. ገ
20. *g [ɡ] 20. � 𐩴� g gimel 21. geem g gäml g 20. 𐎂/𐎂 g g gamla 3
22. *ġ ʁ [ɣ] 22. � 𐩶 ġ ɣ ghayn 23. ghain 16. ዐ ʿ ʕ ʿäyn 22. 𐎙/𐎙 ġ,ʿ ɣ ġain 26
25. *ḏ ð [ð] 25. � 𐩹 ḏ ð dhaleth 26. thal 25. 𐎏/𐎏 ḏ→d ð ḏal 16
29. *ṱ θʼ/tθʼ [θʼ] 29. � 𐩼 ẓ θˤ theth 29. zah 19. 𐎑/𐎑?ẓ/ðˤ ṱ→ġ ðˤ ẓu 18
26. ፐ 34. ፐ p ʾu ʔu
𐩾 No. 50 10 p p psa (30. 𐎜/𐎜) u 29
numeric 8. ሸ ʃ
𐩿 indicator
20 𐎟/𐎟 word divider
11. ቨ v
13. ቸ tʃ
16. ኘ ɲ
19. ኸ h(x)
23. ዠ ʒ
26. ጀ dʒ
29. ጨ tʃʼ
4
If we compare lines 7 and 15 of the South Semitic chart above, we see that the Old Yemeni sounds and the Ugaritic sounds seem to have swapped places. However, in fact Ugaritic 𐎝/𐎝,
numbered 15 in the South Semitic alphabetical order and 30 (as if an afterthought) in the North Semitic order, was apparently not used in Ugaritic to represent a separate sound, but was
either unused or was used for the same sound as 10. 𐎒/𐎒 [s]. Therefore it is not surprising that the Ugaritic alphabet swapped 7 and 15. This is why it seems probable that Ugaritic 𐎝/𐎝 was
intended to write the [ɬ] sound in other Semitic languages, traditionally transcribed /ś/. For more info, see The Outcome of the Three Fricatives /š/ [ʃ], /ṯ/ [θ], and /ś/ [ɬ].