Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Jim West <jwest AT Highland.Net>]

At 08:50 PM 9/5/99 +0200, you wrote:
>Dear Jim,
>
>Let me rephrase my statement so you don't miss my point.

I didnt miss your point the first time.  Your point is simply wrong.

>
>The YOD in dual endings is not a MATER (therefore not optional) - the YOD is
>missing from the ending of YERUSHALAYIM in more than 99% of the cases.

The yod is always optional because it is a matres.  Just as the waw is
always optional.

>Therefore, the pronunciation of Jerusalem in OT times was not with a dual
>ending, but is a later contrivance.  This conclusion is reinforced by the LXX
>transliteration plus the Aramaic spelling YERUSHALEM.

First, if you notice very carefully you will see that the masoretes (more
familiar with the tradition and pronunciation of their own language than
moderns I would suggest) include the hireq of the hireq yod in every
occurance of Yerushalayim.  This demonstrates two things- the yod is
understood (and absent because it is a matres and can be left aside) and
second, the dual ending is understood in 100% of the occurances of the word.

Take a look at Gesenius' discussion of the matres lectiones.

>
>Do you have another explanation (as opposed to a simple reassertion of your
>certitude based on facts you feel no need to share with the rest of us)?
>

Given above.  And I felt no need to share these facts as I presumed that
they were well known to anyone who has taken even a cursory look at Hebrew
grammar.

Best,

Jim

+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West, ThD
email- jwest AT highland.net
web page-  http://web.infoave.net/~jwest