Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] History of matres lectionis

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>
  • To: Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] History of matres lectionis
  • Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 11:58:02 +0000

On 23/02/2006 01:54, Yitzhak Sapir wrote:
...

You wrote: "there is no way of telling from inscriptional Hebrew which
final he's are pronounced and which are silent." Now that is an
interesting statement. Why would you insist that we have no way of
telling only which final he's are pronounced? What about medial
he's? How do we know that they are pronounced? We may ask
the same of any letter and dispute the transliteration into Greek as a
different dialect than the primary one. How do we know if final n's
are silent or pronounced, for example? In my opinion, unless it is
possible to show that a particular final he must have been silent,
there is no reason to believe otherwise. This doesn't just apply
to pre-exilic times. It applies to post-exilic times as well. It applies
to the spelling of the Torah and to the rest of the Bible. It applies to
Qumran. But each of these must be tested within their own spelling
convention. It goes for any letter, not just final he, of course.

There are two answers here. The first is that we have (barring occasional debatable descriptions) no real way of telling how any ancient text was pronounced. But we have to go on what clues that we have, which include more modern pronunciations of the same language and related languages. I would accept that as a general principle we should assume that letters were pronounced unless there is evidence that they were not. But for the final he's there is good evidence to suggest that they or most of them were not pronounced, in the Masoretic and modern Hebrew pronunciation, in the Arabic pronunciation of cognates, and in Greek, Latin etc transliterations which never attempt to reproduce the final he but consistently transliterate as if these words ended in vowels.

You claim that the same rule applies to pre-exilic, post-exilic, biblical and Qumran Hebrew. I agree that very likely it does. But then I claim that for the same reason the same probably rule still applied to Masoretic Hebrew, at least in the absence of evidence to the contrary. The implication is that most final he's were silent.


...
EHO: (t - "(at" ["now"], a colloquial form, corresponding to the longer
literary
word, (attah. There can be no doubt that the final accented a would have been
indicated in the orthography as it is regularly after the 10th century in all
Hebrew inscriptions. ...

Thank you for these extracts. And how exactly would this final accented a have been indicated in the orthography? With a he? If so, Cross and Friedman are agreeing with me that in pre-exilic Hebrew final he may represent a final accented a and not necessarily an h consonant.

...

The above indicates some of the curiousities of the work. The word (atta
"now"
is seen by Cross and Friedman to have no final vowel because there is no
final he in the pre-exilic spelling. They assert this on the basis
that final vowels
were always written in the Hebrew orthography. But this example forms one of
many others that are supposed to lead to the conclusion whether or not final
vowels were used. The same can be said for the relatively similar examples
in Phoenician and Moabite ")nk" and "aby". They even recognize the original
consonantal force of the he in feminine singular words. Yet they assert (in
the
discussion of "now") that final a must have always been written down.

I accept that this conclusion might be unsafe if there was not clear evidence in the Hebrew Bible that separate forms `at and `ata existed. The alternative would hypothesise that the alternative forms were `ata and `atah. That is of course possible.

Look, Yitzhak, I don't claim to be an expert here. But my account of ancient Hebrew pronunciation is the standard scholarly one as presented by Cross and Friedman. If you wish to challenge their conclusions, take the matter up with them or in proper scholarly journals, not with me.

...
And if you want to doubt m.l. before the 9th century, well then, you are
now disputing Cross and Friedman's analysis which is essentially what
you said all scholars "know" except me. ...

I am not sure what I said which disagrees with Cross and Friedman, but I bow to their superior knowledge.

--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page