Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re[4]: Jerusalem, neuter plural

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: peter_kirk AT sil.org
  • To: <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re[4]: Jerusalem, neuter plural
  • Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 23:49:57 -0400


Dear Jim,

I think you need to do a little study of phonology to understand the
distinction between a consonant and a vowel. On most normal
definitions and analyses of Hebrew, in the string of transliterated
Hebrew letters -AYIM the letters A and I would be considered vowels
and the letters Y and M would be considered consonants; the string
would be pronounced as two separate syllables and not as a diphthong.
I accept that the Y sound may also be described as a "semi-vowel", but
within the phonology of the Hebrew language and its writing system Y
(yod) functions as a consonant, except in the clearly defined set of
circumstances in which it is a mater. As several other posts today
have made clear, the dual ending is not one of those cases in which
yod functions as a mater.

The furtive pathach endings are an interesting case which do have some
parallels to YERUSHALAYIM. If we look at a word like R"YAX, this
appears superficially to have a CVCVC structure like the ending of
YERUSHALAYIM. But note that the first vowel is long and is one which
is commonly found with a yod mater. I think it is better to analyse
this yod as a mater. But in fact the yod is not dropped in any of the
55 occurrences of this word. The situation is somewhat different with
the word NIXOWAX which so often occurs with R"YAX; here the waw is
often dropped, and I think no-one would dispute that it is a mater. I
would analyse these furtive pathach forms as diphthongs (whose
pronunciation is caused by the physical difficulty of pronouncing a
guttural sound after a non-low vowel), and so as fundamentally
different in structure from the dual ending. Thus there is no
unwritten consonant in these furtive pathach forms. I agree that a
case could be made for an analysis with a consonant, but this would
need to be based on a proper phonological analysis.

I am also not convinced of the folk etymology, although I would tend
to associate the second element of the name with the Semitic root
SH-L-M. But the point is that in ancient times people believed this
folk etymology, and they would not have done if they had understood
the final M as part of a dual ending rather than as a root consonant.

I don't claim to know better than the Masoretes how words were
pronounced in their time. But I do have evidence which was not
available to the Masoretes of how this word was pronounced at a time
several hundred years before their time, and so I do have good reason
for believing that the pronunciation had changed during this time.

As for truth values, I think we can assume that the yod is not in fact
a mattress, and if it is also not a mater, then the statements "the
yod is a mattress" and "the yod is a mater" are both false, and thus
(according to the terminology of at least some branches of logic)
their truth values are the same. I don't think I am saying anything
profound here.

Time to hit my mattress! ;-)

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Re[3]: Jerusalem, neuter plural
Author: jwest AT highland.net at internet
Date: 07/09/1999 13:52





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page