[b-hebrew] Initial "Beged Kefet" consonants always have a...

Dr. Joel M. Hoffman joel at exc.com
Wed Oct 19 08:31:50 EDT 2005


>The point is, however, that the LXX transliterations are reasonably 
>consistent with the Masoretes. Dagesh kal is the only difference - that stop 

It's getting difficult for me to keep up with the deluge of messages
on this topic, but I'll try to reply briefly at least to this one.

Dagesh Kal is of course not the only difference.  We have already
established that the syllabification differs (e.g., Rikva / Rebekka).
We further find that the LXX has double letters that frequently do not
correspond to anything in the Tiberian version.  Additionally, we find
inconsistent koof/kaf and tet/taf distinctions, as well as
inconsistent chet transliteration.  And the vowels compare very
poorly.

So the differences include:

1. Beged kefet
2. Syllabification
3. Taf/Tet, Kaf/Koof, Chet
4. Vowels

>of begedkefet consonants after that stop. For example, MElha became Mil.ha 
>and came to be pronounced as MIl.ca.

As with many of your messages, here you account for one observation in
a way that contradicts your other accounts.  Here you assume that the
LXX forms were the original ones, but for Rebekka you assume that the
TH form was original.

>> 2.  Double letters in the LXX do not match up with anything in TH.  (A
>>    particularly striking example comes from I Chronicles 24:13:
>>    XuPah [TH; P=peh with dagesh] -- Oxxoffa [LXX]).
>
>What is so striking about it? Aspirated pey sounds like ph; post-tonic 
>gemination makes it phph. Greeks took a breath before x for o, semi-stressed 
>word-initial vowel (much like in French), and it geminated, too.

This is another example.  Your claim that XuPah naturally becomes
Oxxoffa because the Greeks took a breath before x is inconsistent
with, e.g., Xava vs. Eua.  Yet again, look at the table:

    http://www.exc.com/JoelHoffman/Excerpts/ITB-p95.pdf

Your various messages account for single pairs in the table, but not
for the whole table.

Those interersted in the LXX might be interested in Sturtevant's _The
Pronunciation of Greek and Latin_, which I've added to my reading
list:

   http://www.exc.com/JoelHoffman/ReadingList.html

It reviews the evidence about the pronunciation of Greek (and Latin),
though without the benefit of modern linguistics.

-Joel M. Hoffman
 http://www.exc.com/JoelHoffman



More information about the b-hebrew mailing list