[b-hebrew] Initial "Beged Kefet" consonants always have a...
VadimCherny at mail.ru
Wed Oct 19 14:13:30 EDT 2005
> >The point is, however, that the LXX transliterations are reasonably
>>consistent with the Masoretes. Dagesh kal is the only difference - that
> 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).
Nope. Rivkah has two syllables only in modern pronunciation. Can't disregard
schwa just becaue you don't pronounce it. Fricativisation of bet helps you
to omit schwa, which is otherwise reasonably distinct. Stress on the first,
RIb(e)kah or rather RIbh'kah.
> We further find that the LXX has double letters that frequently do not
> correspond to anything in the Tiberian version.
Stress shift, that's it. Greek has different stress pattern from Hebrew. You
don't mean that Russian Иван is not consistent with English Ivan just
because the stress varies.
> Additionally, we find inconsistent koof/kaf and tet/taf distinctions,
Only because you defined the consistence too narrowly. No two languages have
letter-for-letter correspondence, I guess. Latin u does not have one English
equivalent. According to your logic, that means that Latin writing system is
wrong. Guess you don't think so.
The same consonants soound differently in different environments, and such
changes differ between languages. So there couldn't be letter-for-letter
correspondence, but only reasonably complex enviromental correspondences,
accounting for stress patterns, different aspiration of similar sounds in
both languages, different vowel length. What was RIbh'kah for Jews, could be
RebEka (->RebEkka) for Greeks with perhaps less aspirated beta. Now onder
they took /h'/ for a separate vowel.
> And the vowels compare very poorly.
Hm. Ever tried comparing vowels across languages? Vowels are different in
Russian Иван and English Ivan. So what? Vowels are even different regionally
for English speakers, for that matter.
Joel, you invent some unreasonably narrow rules of correspondence and then
wonder why they don't hold.
> 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.
Didn't get it. How could I assume that LXX forms are the original? What I
say, is that LXX reasonably, with understandable changes reflect the
expected - Masoretic - pronunciation.
> 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:
Wasn't claim; a mere suggestion of unexplored possibility.
Take another option: since the only instance of HUphphah is in the form
LeHuphpha, that le quite possibly accounts for the initial o.
More information about the b-hebrew