Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Psa 107:19-21 (was WAYYIQTOL) -- CORRECTION

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: furuli AT online.no
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Psa 107:19-21 (was WAYYIQTOL) -- CORRECTION
  • Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 14:31:49 +0100


Peter Kirk writes,


On 14/03/2004 23:13, Karl Randolph wrote:

gfsomsel:

This was a question that I never expected to ask. I had been taught in class that the Masoritic points preserved the original pronunciation. I didn't question my prof, not even years later.

But if Rolf is correct, even some of the pronunciations that we thought we knew from the Masoretes are wrong.


I think you are misunderstanding Rolf. Even he has stepped back from the position of claiming that the Masoretes invented the pronunciation distinction.

Or is your point that we don't know exactly how the Masoretic pointing should be pronounced? This is generally agreed, and is not specific to Rolf.

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



Dear Peter,

I do not know what you mean by "has stepped back from the position", but my view of the Masoretes has been the same all the time. It is built on the following data:

1) There is no distinction between WAYYIQTOL and WEYIQTOL in the DSS.

2) There is no distinction between WAYYIQTOL and WEYIQTOL in Origen.

3) The first graphic distinction between the two is found in the Tiberian MT.

I mention the *Tiberian* MT, because in Palestinian Manuscripts there are several differences. In Paul Kahle's "Masoreten des Westens II" of 1930 (pp. 20-23), his manuscript J covers Daniel 9:24-12:13, and the context is future. Of the 50 YIQTOLs with prefixed WAW in this manuscript, 11 are pointed. Three of them are pointed as WEYIQTOLs both in J. and in the Tiberian MT, and one is pointed as a WAYYIQTOL in both texts. However, the 6 examples from 11:5, 15(2), 16(2), 17 are pointed as WEYIQTOLs in the Tiberian MT but as WAYYIQTOLs in J. We must presume that the Palestinian Masoretes made their pointing on the basis of what they heard in the synagogue, just as did the Tiberian Masoretes, yet they interpreted it differently. Your examples from the LXX regarding a difference between WAYYIQTOL and WEYIQTOL in pre-Masoretic times are irrelevant, because what we need to demonstrate are graphic or phonological differences. Translation into another language tells us very little.

4) We know that the default pronunciation of shewa in Masoretic times was an "a"-sound just as patah.

The Masoretes introduced gemination after the article, after the relative particle $ and after the interrogative particle MH, but not after the interrogative particle H. Why? As far as I know, nobody has suggested that the gemination or the differences are grammatical or semantic, yet the Masoretes introduced this distinction. We know that the Masoretes were not grammarians and that the Tiberian Masoretes introduced the graphic difference between WAYYIQTOL and WEYIQTOL, but this difference need not be grammatical or semantic. Nobody today can know exactly the motives or the procedures of the Masoretes, but the graphic differences need not be anything but two different ways of expressing the "a"-sound (patah pronounced as "a" and shewa pronounced as "a" - one used in past contexts and the other in future contexts). But because of their rules that patah should not normally occur in an open unstressed syllable (except in particular situations), the first consonant of the WAYYIQTOL became geminated (Rather the reverse is true, gemination cases patah - this is seen in 1.p.s forms.

The thoughts above regarding the work of the Masoretes are of course only tentative, but I have not stepped back from any previous position, these thoughts are the same that I have expressed all the time.


Best regards

Rolf


Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo




















Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page