on but met little acceptance until the work of Alice Faber (1981) who challenged the older approach. The Semitic languages that have survived often have fricatives for these consonants. However, Ethiopic languages and Modern Hebrew, in many reading traditions, have an affricate for . The evidence for the various affricate interpretations of the sibilants is direct evidence from transcriptions and structural evidence. However, the evidence for the "maximal extension" positions that extend affricate interpretations to non-sibilant "fricatives" is largely structural because of both the relative rarity of the interdentals and lateral obstruents among the attested Semitic language and the even-greater rarity of such sounds among the various languages in which Semitic words were transcribed. As a result, even when the sounds were transcribed, the resulting transcriptions may be difficult to interpret clearly. The narrowest affricate view (only was an affricate ) is the most accepted one. The affricate pronunciation is directly attested in the modern Ethiopic languages and Modern Hebrew, as mentioned above, but also in ancient transcriptions of numerous Semitic languages in various other languages: Transcriptions of Ge'ez from the period of the Axumite Kingdom (early centuries AD): ṣəyāmo rendered as Greek τζιαμω tziamō. The Hebrew reading tradition of as clearly goes back at least to medieval times, as shown by the use of Hebrew () to represent affricates in early New Persian, Old Osmanli Turkic, Middle High German etc. Similarly, Old French c was used to transliterate : Hebrew "righteousness" and "land (of Israel)" were written cedek, arec. There is also evidence of an affricate in Ancient Hebrew and Phoenician . Punic was often transcribed as ts or t in Latin and Greek or occasionally Greek ks; correspondingly, Egyptian names and loanwords in Hebrew and Phoenician use to represent the Egyptian palatal affricate ḏ (conventionally described as voiced but possibly instead an unvoiced ejective ). Aramaic and Syriac had an affricated realization of until some point, as is seen in Classical Armenian loanwords: Aramaic 'bundle, bunch' → Classical Armenian crar . The "maximal affricate" view, applied only to sibilants, also has transcriptional evidence. According to Kogan, the affricate interpretation of Akkadian is generally accepted. Akkadian cuneiform, as adapted for writing various other languages, used the signs to represent affricates. Examples include /ts/ in Hittite, Egyptian affricate in the Amarna letters and the Old Iranian affricates in Elamite. Egyptian transcriptions of early Canaanite words with use affricates ( for