[b-hebrew] Hebrew transliteration

Peter Kirk peterkirk at qaya.org
Mon Jan 19 14:21:05 EST 2004

On 19/01/2004 10:54, Jason Hare wrote:

>>And so for the Masoretic
>>perhaps we have some kind of perpetual Qere, with the
>>pronunciation as
>>if there is one lengthened lamed; so we would have unchanged
>>Ketiv HLLW
>>YH but Qere HAL.W. YAH.
>I thought that HLL was a piel form, so both lameds were to be pronounced. Am
>I just off? Thus, the dagesh in the first lamed represents the dagesh of the
>piel binyan, ...
Yes - except that there isn't a dagesh in the first lamed. If there was, 
there would be no problem, except that Trevor would have to 
transliterate with three l's, hallluw yah. But a lot of people seem to 
read the word as if there was a dagesh there.

>... and the second lamed is the third radical. Have I ever seen
>HLWYH instead of HLLWYH? I don't think so. I don't recall seeing it in any
>of the Massoretic notations, and I never had read about it being a perpetual
>q'rei until this message. Can I get a reference?
No, the idea of it being a qere was my own speculation, probably unfounded.

Peter Kirk
peter at qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk at qaya.org (work)

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list