[b-hebrew] Inseparable Prepositions and that shewa
vadimcherny at gmail.com
Mon Apr 26 06:34:46 EDT 2010
Yitzhak Sapir wrote:
>Ben Asher and Saadia did not live "three or four centuries after the
>introduced their notation." The Masoretes were not a single group
>who in one day introduced a whole new notation and then left the
Had not dagesh marks appeared centuries before Saadia, who would thus
be expected to explain rather than challenge them?
> The Masoretic tradition has dagesh kal even in Aramaic texts - do you
> seriously believe that every other Aramaic author was wrong in
> omitting them (as far as I know)?
>Well, that depends. Which Aramaic author or authors did you have
>in mind that omitted them in vocalized texts?
No doubt, your linguistic knowledge vastly exceeds mine. Still, I
won't recall a single Aramaic text which supports dagesh kal in, say,
>Vocalized Aramaic texts in the Hebrew tradition (such as Onqelos) also
>have dagesh qal. Even Syriac has qu$$aya and rukkakha to mark the
Or, perhaps, Onkelos was dageshed well later? We don't have its early
manuscripts. I have no information about Syriac.
>Or did you simply make a claim about
>"every other Aramaic author" just like you make up vocalizations of
>non-existent words in the Bible?
Why not stop beating a dead horse? I used binchem example the way
qtalchem is used.
>The DSS does not have "dvarac." The DSS has final -kh and -th leading
>scholars to believe the pronunciation was -ka.
But DSS also have final hey in otem - at tmh, so final hey in 2ms is
likely a similar epenthetic sound.
It is still more clear in Secunda: tovac for tovcha.
If you would argue that Greek X was ch, then you would have to explain
LXX's Xalannia for Calneh.
>Similarly, neither the Secunda nor the LXX (to which the Masoretes did
>have access), allow us to distinguish fricative from plosive
>since the Greek writing system did not distinguish fricative and
Why not? tav is theta rather than tau, caf is chi rather than kappa in
>The pronunciations in the Secunda feature the drop of the last vowel
>the suffixed pronouns. They show a development similar to Aramaic
>the last vowel that was lost displaced the original case vowel -
>"your king (nominative)" -> malkak.
Might it be very different? It is one thing to drop a final vowel
after an open syllable (malkuka), and quite another - after a closed
syllable (dvarcha). There must be a reason for vulgar epenthesis in
dvar(e)cha but not in catavta, and the only such reason is semantic:
verbs and nouns received different intonational accent.
>No, we can't. The dagesh is not "an attempt at resyllabification."
>dagesh is present in -tem because historically there was never any
>vowel separating -tem and the root. It is not present in -khem
>because nouns had a case vowel and verbs had a vowel following most
>nominative suffixes (-ti: in katavti:, -ta in katavta, etc.)
You really believe that the Masoretes wrote a diachronic grammar,
reflecting the case vowel lost perhaps a thousand years before them?
More information about the b-hebrew