[b-hebrew] Kamatz katan

YODAN yodanco at yodanco.com
Wed Oct 4 16:52:00 EDT 2006


Shalom Rolf,

 

I looked at the section you mentioned and saw a few WEYIQTOLs but didn't
find a WAYYIQTOL;  I must have missed it.  Can you give a chapter/verse
please?

 

In any event, are you saying that a word like vaYAkom (with kamatz katan as
the last vowel) is a form of yaKOM (with holam as the last syllable) or
yaKUM (with kubutz or shuruk as the last syllable) to which VAV was added?
If so, I agree and I believe this is the accepted explanation of these
forms.  This is also an example of a HOLAM turning into Kamatz Katan or,
better yet, an earlier SHURUK or KUBUTZ that later (sometimes) into Holam
(in imperfect verbs) or into kamatz katan (when the VAV was added and the
accentuation changed).  Do you agree with this?

 

I'm interested in the point about 2 and 4 conjunctions.  Can you please
elaborate on this?

 

Thanks and best.

 

********************

Rivka

The Ohs and Ahs of Torah Reading

YODAN Publishing

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: b-hebrew-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:b-hebrew-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Rolf Furuli
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 11:47 AM
To: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Kamatz katan

 

Dear Rivka,

 

Your words below are well taken. I would like to add one point, namely, that


the Yisraeli pointing does not agree with the MT as to which forms are 

WAYYIQTOLs and which are WEYIQTOLs.

 

P. Kahle (1930) "Masoretens des Westens Texte und Untersuchungen zur 

Vormasoretischen Grammatik des Hebräischen" published several manuscripts 

with Yisraeli pointing. In his manuscript "J," which contains 82 verses 

(Daniel 9:24-12:13),  there are 50 prefix forms with prefixed WAW. Of these,


40 are not pointed, and thus are not comparable to MT. Of the pointed 

examples, we find 3 which are pointed as WEYIQTOLS both in J and in MT, 1 is


pointed as WAYYIQTOL both in J and in MT, but 6, which occur in future 

settings, are pointed as WEYIQTOLs in MT and as WAYYIQTOLs in J. This means 

that in this manuscript 60% of the forms are pointed differently from the 

MT, and that number is significant.

 

For your information: on the basis of a study of all the verbs of MT I argue


that WAYYIQTOL is nothing but a YIQTOL with the conjunction WAW prefixed, 

and that classical Hebrew has just two conjugations and not four.

 

 

Best regards,

 

Rolf Furuli

University of Oslo

 

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "YODAN" <yodanco at yodanco.com>

To: <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>; <VadimCherny at mail.ru>

Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 7:07 PM

Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Kamatz katan; Ashkenazi pronunciation;was: 

Translating

 

 

> Shalom Vadim,

> 

> 

> 

> We need to remember that the Masoretic pronunciation (which pronounced 

> both

> kamatz vowels identically) was not the only Hebrew pronunciation at the

> time.  At the same time that the Masoretes vocalized the Tanakh per their

> pronunciation (I suppose, the pronunciation that was used in the northern

> part of the Land of Israel) two other vowel systems have developed, based 

> on

> pronunciations that were different from that of the Masoretes.  The one

> developed in the center part of the Land of Israel (called the Yisraeli

> (formerly "Palestinian") vowel system) and the Babylonian vowel system.

> Both of these systems had not only different vowel symbols but were 

> actually

> different pronunciations.  The Sephardi pronunciation, which retained the

> etymological origin of the two Kamatz vowels is based on the Yisraeli

> pronunciation, even though all accepted the Masoretic vowel signs.  This 

> is

> exactly why we have the "problem" of one symbols for two distinct vowels.

> So the etymological basis for kamatz katan was not forgotten -- it was 

> kept

> intact by Sepharadim in their Hebrew pronunciation, and have later become

> the basis of these vowels in modern Hebrew.

> 

> 

> 

> The "environmental" explanation is merely a "technical" framework; it's a

> useful rule, but it doesn't explain why we have in Sephardi and Israeli

> Hebrew two different vowels with the same symbol; it doesn't address

> "exceptions" (which are not really exceptions if one looks at the word

> etymology rather that strict adherence to rules);  and is not consistent

> with language development.

> 

> 

> 

> I find it difficult to accept your explanation of kamatz katan as a 

> "vulgar"

> presentation of certain kmatzim since the fact (i.e. the etymological 

> basis

> of vowels) is so clearly present in the Sephardi pronunciation.  It is 

> well

> known that the Sepharadim kept throughout the generations the

> differentiation between the two vowels, even though they used the same

> symbol for both, because they accepted the Masoretic nikkud.

> 

> 

> 

> Kol tuv,

> 

> 

> 

> **********************

> 

> Rivka Sherman-Gold

> 

> The Ohs and Ahs of Torah Reading

> 

> YODAN Publishing

> 

> 

> 

> -----Original Message-----

> 

> From: Vadim Cherny [mailto:VadimCherny at mail.ru]

> 

> Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 9:52 AM

> 

> To: YODAN; b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org

> 

> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Kamatz katan; Ashkenazi pronunciation; was:

> Translating

> 

> 

> 

> From: "YODAN" <yodanco at yodanco.com>

> 

>> The fact that the original symbol of kamatz (see the Leningrad Codex and

> 

>> Aleppo Codex) was not like a T letter (which is the current symbol of 

>> both

> 

>> Kamatz vowels) but, rather, as a horizontal line under which there is a

> 

> dot.

> 

>> This is believed to reflect the pronunciation of kamatz by the 

>> Masoretes -

> 

>> as something in between Patah (ah) and Holam (oh) - which is how au or aw

> 

> is

> 

>> pronounced.

> 

> 

> 

> That's far from certain. The dot is BELOW the patah-like line. A dot below

> 

> represents hirek rather than holam, and the sound is [ai] - [e] rather 

> than

> 

> [au].

> 

> 

> 

>>  In practically all cases of kamatz katan there is an underlying

> 

>> word with kubutz or shuruk (UH) or holam (OH) vowel

> 

> 

> 

> So you say that etymologically kamatz katan originates from holam/ shuruk,

> 

> and that that etymology was somehow remembered so that we pronounce kamatz

> 

> as [o]? That seems quite incredible.

> 

> Etymological derivationof the words with kamatz katan from the words with

> 

> holam/shuruk is very doubtful (I'm prepared to discuss your examples).

> 

> The "remembrance" of etymology, bearing of etymology on current

> 

> pronunciation of a cmoon vowel, is also very unlikely.

> 

> 

> 

> What's wrong with a simple explanation that kamatz katan is a kamatz in

> 

> closed unaccented syllables? Strictly environmental difference in

> 

> pronunciation.

> 

> 

> 

> Vadim Cherny

> 

> 

> 

> _______________________________________________

> b-hebrew mailing list

> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org

> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

> 

> 

> 

 

 

_______________________________________________

b-hebrew mailing list

b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org

http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew




More information about the b-hebrew mailing list