Masoretic Marking in Deut 1:36

Fred Putnam fputnam at biblical.edu
Mon Dec 17 10:52:19 EST 2001


In the facsimile, the accent is illegible, even with a powerful glass. The letters 
are squeezed on this line, and the base material appear to be slightly 
damaged/worn at this spot. The marks in the facsimile more closely 
resemble segolta than zaqef, but segolta is postpositive, whereas this mark 
is clearly above the initial yod.

I have no suggestion for the textual basis of the mark in BHS, but it does not 
seem to reflect a mark in the original, according to the facsimile.

Mp says that this word+accent combination occurs three times, and, 
according to Weil's Masorah Magna #2597 (where he identifies the accent as 
zaqef gadol), the other occurrences are Jr 25.8 and Ek 31.10, both of which 
are Ya(aN with regular zaqef gadol (i.e., with the vertical stroke to the left).

Best wishes,
Fred



Date sent:      	Sun, 16 Dec 2001 00:00:10 -0500
Subject:        	b-hebrew digest: December 15, 2001
To:             	"b-hebrew digest recipients" <b-hebrew at franklin.oit.unc.edu>
From:           	"Biblical Hebrew digest" <b-hebrew at franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Send reply to:  	"Biblical Hebrew" <b-hebrew at franklin.oit.unc.edu>

> B-HEBREW Digest for Saturday, December 15, 2001.
> 
> 1. consonantal roots
> 2. Masoretic Marking in Deut 1:36
> 3. Re: Masoretic Marking in Deut 1:36
> 4. RE: Masoretic Marking in Deut 1:36
> 5. consonantal roots
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Subject: consonantal roots
> From: "M & E Anstey" <anstey at raketnet.nl>
> Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 15:04:16 +0100
> X-Message-Number: 1
> 
> Dear B-Haverim,
> 
> There have been several posts lately about the (psychological) reality of
> pure consonantal stems in Hebrew, modern and biblical. For those interested in
> this issue, there are several points to remember: 1. Ussisshkin and Bat-El argue
> that vowels must be stored with consonants for certain derviational processes to
> work. Their arguments are quite strong, suggesting that lemmas are stored as
> complete. Breuning also argues that segolates are stored complete, as in mélek,
> not as malk-# or mlk. These arguments suggest that consonantal roots ARE NOT
> basic. 2. Psycholinguistic research of aphasic Hebrew (and Arabic) speakers
> strongly suggests that consonantal roots ARE basic, since most of their errors
> involve the placement of incorrect vowels into correct consonantal skeletons.
> 
> There are various other arguments, but the complete picture suggests to me
> that both are true. Words are stored as wholes, with vowels, but that
> abstractions are made (mostly without awareness) of consonantal skeletons
> that are invariate across many related forms. The preponderance of written
> Hebrew without vowels would reinforce such abstraction I think.
> 
> Just some thoughts on the matter,
> regards
> 
> Matthew Anstey
> ------------------------------------------
> Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
> Faculteit der Godgeleerdheid
> "Werkgroep Informatica"
> anstey at postmark.net
> 
> +31 (0)20 - 444-6626 (W)
> +31 (0)255 - 52-6541 (H)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Subject: Masoretic Marking in Deut 1:36
> From: Mark Wessner <mark at wessner.ca>
> Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 21:24:19 -0800
> X-Message-Number: 2
> 
> Hi Everyone,
> 
> I am doing some research on Deut 1:36 and have noticed an accent that I 
> have not seen before.  Halfway through the verse above ya'an there is what looks
> like a zaqeph magnum, except that it is backwards.  Is this simply another way
> of indicating the disjunctive magnum, or is it something different?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Mark
> 
> PS.  I also note that the Samaritan Pentateuch has kiy rather than ya'an.
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Subject: Re: Masoretic Marking in Deut 1:36
> From: Raymond de Hoop <rdehoop at keyaccess.nl>
> Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 16:28:32 +0100
> X-Message-Number: 3
> 
> Hi Mark,
> 
> It might be an typographical error of BHS: BHK (2nd ed.) does read the
> zaqeph gadol here in its normal fashion, as does Snaith. The facs. of Codex L.
> is hard to read here (but I do not have a loupe...), so that does not help very
> much. Considering the fact that the other editions did read it in its normal
> shape, suggests that BHS just made a mistake.
> 
> Regards, 
> Raymond de Hoop
> 
> 
> 
> > Van: Mark Wessner <mark at wessner.ca>
> > Beantwoord: Mark Wessner <mark at wessner.ca>
> > Datum: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 21:24:19 -0800
> > Aan: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew at franklin.oit.unc.edu>
> > Onderwerp: Masoretic Marking in Deut 1:36
> > 
> > Hi Everyone,
> > 
> > I am doing some research on Deut 1:36 and have noticed an accent that I
> > have not seen before.  Halfway through the verse above ya'an there is what
> > looks like a zaqeph magnum, except that it is backwards.  Is this simply
> > another way of indicating the disjunctive magnum, or is it something
> > different?
> > 
> > Thanks!
> > 
> > Mark
> > 
> > PS.  I also note that the Samaritan Pentateuch has kiy rather than ya'an.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ---
> > You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: [rdehoop at keyaccess.nl]
> > To unsubscribe, forward this message to
> > $subst('Email.Unsub')
> > To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew at franklin.oit.unc.edu.
> > 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Subject: RE: Masoretic Marking in Deut 1:36
> From: "Peter Kirk" <Peter_Kirk at sil.org>
> Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 16:09:17 -0000
> X-Message-Number: 4
> 
> This is interesting as it does actually appear to be an additional
> cantillation mark, at least graphically, in the BHS text. It doesn't appear for
> example in Helmut Richter's comprehensive website on "Hebrew Cantillation Marks
> And Their Encoding", http://www.lrz-muenchen.de/~hr/teamim/; nor does it appear
> in Unicode. The mark in this verse is encoded as an ordinary zaqeph magnum in
> the SIL Hebrew text and in at least the Oxford edition of the CCAT BHS text from
> which this is derived.
> 
> Alternatively, could this be a scribal error in the Leningrad MS or a typo
> in BHS? I note that there is an ordinary zaqeph magnum in my N.H. Snaith
> Bible Societies Hebrew Bible.
> 
> I am copying this (as blind copies) to Helmut Richter and to a couple of SIL
> colleagues, as they may be interested and able to comment.
> 
> Peter Kirk
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mark Wessner [mailto:mark at wessner.ca]
> > Sent: 14 December 2001 05:24
> > To: Biblical Hebrew
> > Subject: Masoretic Marking in Deut 1:36
> >
> >
> > Hi Everyone,
> >
> > I am doing some research on Deut 1:36 and have noticed an accent that I
> > have not seen before.  Halfway through the verse above ya'an
> > there is what
> > looks like a zaqeph magnum, except that it is backwards.  Is this simply
> > another way of indicating the disjunctive magnum, or is it
> > something different?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > PS.  I also note that the Samaritan Pentateuch has kiy rather than ya'an.
> >
> >
> >
> > ---
> > You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: [Peter_Kirk at sil.org]
> > To unsubscribe, forward this message to
> > $subst('Email.Unsub')
> > To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew at franklin.oit.unc.edu.
> >
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Subject: consonantal roots
> From: Randall Buth <ButhFam at compuserve.com>
> Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 20:18:53 -0500
> X-Message-Number: 5
> 
> shalom Matthew,
> katavta:
> >
> There have been several posts lately about the (psychological) reality of=
> 
> pure consonantal stems in Hebrew, modern and biblical. For those interest=
> ed
> in this issue, there are several points to remember:
> 1. Ussisshkin and Bat-El argue that vowels must be stored with consonants=
> 
> for certain derviational processes to work. Their arguments are quite
> strong, suggesting that lemmas are stored as complete. Breuning also argu=
> es
> that segolates are stored complete, as in m=E9lek, not as malk-# or mlk.
> These
> arguments suggest that consonantal roots ARE NOT basic.
> 2. Psycholinguistic research of aphasic Hebrew (and Arabic) speakers
> strongly suggests that consonantal roots ARE basic, since most of their
> errors involve the placement of incorrect vowels into correct consonantal=
> 
> skeletons.
> 
> There are various other arguments, but the complete picture suggests to m=
> e
> that both are true. Words are stored as wholes, with vowels, but that
> abstractions are made (mostly without awareness) of consonantal skeletons=
> 
> that are invariate across many related forms. The preponderance of writte=
> n
> Hebrew without vowels would reinforce such abstraction I think.
> 
> Just some thoughts on the matter,
> regards
> 
> Matthew Anstey<
> 
> comment:
> Your points one and two may be dealing with different matters. =
> 
> For meaning and lexemes, #1 would seem to be the reality. =
> 
> for morphology, #2 is true. =
> 
> Thus #1deals with derivational morphology, #2 with 'inflectional'.
> "Words have meanings, not etymologies."
> 
> blessings
> Randall Buth
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> 
> END OF DIGEST
> 
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: [fputnam at biblical.edu]
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to
> $subst('Email.Unsub') To subscribe, send an email to
> join-b-hebrew at franklin.oit.unc.edu.
> 


Frederic Clarke Putnam, Ph.D.
"Dominus illuminatio mea."

Professor of Old Testament
Biblical Theological Seminary
fputnam at biblical.edu
215-368-5000x150 (office & voice-mail)



More information about the b-hebrew mailing list