Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>]

On 19/01/2004 10:54, Jason Hare wrote:

> > And so for the Masoretic
> > pronunciation
> > perhaps we have some kind of perpetual Qere, with the
> > pronunciation as
> > if there is one lengthened lamed; so we would have unchanged
> > Ketiv HLLW
> > YH but Qere HAL.W. YAH.
> >    
>
> I thought that HLL was a piel form, so both lameds were to be pronounced. Am
> I just off? Thus, the dagesh in the first lamed represents the dagesh of the
> piel binyan, ...
Yes - except that there isn't a dagesh in the first lamed. If there was, 
there would be no problem, except that Trevor would have to 
transliterate with three l's, hallluw yah. But a lot of people seem to 
read the word as if there was a dagesh there.

> ... and the second lamed is the third radical. Have I ever seen
> HLWYH instead of HLLWYH? I don't think so. I don't recall seeing it in any
> of the Massoretic notations, and I never had read about it being a perpetual
> q'rei until this message. Can I get a reference?
>
>  
No, the idea of it being a qere was my own speculation, probably unfounded.


--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/