Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Trevor Peterson" <06peterson AT cua.edu>]

Pere wrote:

> Your system is very clear and unambiguous, but maybe too 
> complicated. We 
> use the circumflex to represent some matres lectionis, as follows:
> 
> hireq + yod: î
> tsere + yod: ê
> segol + yod: aê
> holem + waw: ô
> qamets + he: â
> shureq: û

Part of the reason that I dislike this approach is the impression it
gives that the circumflex indicates a phonetic property, rather than
merely orthographic.
> 
> tsere + he: eh
> segol + he: aeh
> holem + he: oh
> 
> The problem we have is that the ending '-eh' is ambiguous 
> (the reader does 
> not know whether the he has a mappiq or not). We could 
> superscript the he 
> when it is mater lectionis as you do.

Which is why I figured it was better to use superscripting to indicate
the matres lectionis in any case. Wouldn't it be inconsistent and
potentially confusing to use one convention for -eh only? If there were
a sensible way to mark he with mappiq (rather than without it), it might
be better. But since the whole point is to distinguish a true consonant
from vowel markers, it seems to me like we're better off with a system
that can consistently show the nonstandard (from a Roman script
perspective) character of the matres.

Thanks for the input,
Trevor Peterson
CUA/Semitics