crazymulgogi at gmail.com
Fri Mar 17 06:13:44 EST 2006
2006/3/15, yudickya at bgu.ac.il <yudickya at bgu.ac.il>:
> One can not find double Iota for -yy- in Seconda, only single ι.
> The question of the proclitic "w-" in the second column of Hexapla is complicated. There about eight examples of ουα-, four of ουε- and more than fifty of ου- without vowel. Before the verb one can find for the waw conversive ουαθθεμας (the only example with gemination) as well as ουαϊαλεζ, ουεϊεριβου, ουεθαζερηνι, but ουϊεθθεν, ουθεζορήνι, ουθεθθεν, ουιεδαββερ. But for the waw consecutive there is only example with the vowel ουεϊεσεμου (my reading, Mercati read ουεϊεσαμου) and about ten attestations without vowel. So although the statement that there was no differnce between the waw conversive and the waw consecutive, seems to be right, I think that you can see the begining of the process of the differentiation between them even in Secunda transcriptions.
You say "you can see the begining of the process of the
differentiation between them ["waw conversive" and "waw consecutive"]
even in Secunda transcriptions."
With the same argument, we could say it is a "snapshot" of the
disappearence of the lengthened/geminated consonant.
I think there is no such thing as "waw conversive" or even "waw
consecutive", it is the syntactical combination of we/wa, lengthened
consonant and verb form that produces the wayyiqtol. If there are such
things, then "waw conversive" and "waw consecutive" are two names
given by grammarians for the same thing, resp. by Radaq I think, and
by some 19th century grammar.
Furthermore, who says that Origen had heard the same pronunciation
that the Masoretes used? The latter, it's as simple as that, must have
either preserved or invented the wayyiqtol gemination. As that is
simply an absurd idea, they just preserved it.
More information about the b-hebrew