Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>]

On 14/02/2005 16:45, Vadim Cherny wrote:

> > > What I say, basically, is that the Masoretes recorded some instances of
> > > begedkefet (with dagesh kal) more plosified than others (without dagesh).
> > >      
> ...
>  
>
> > OK  if you replace "more plosified" by "not fricativised".
> >    
>
> That I cannot do. The Masoretes introduced dagesh kal--a stop, in my
> opinion--for distinct singing in positions where there is no stop in speech,
> as we can see from Arabic. That stop necessarily reduced aspiration of
> subsequent consonant (the one with dagesh kal). Therefore, the Masoretes
> made some instances of begedkefet "less aspirated" than other instances.
> This led to "begedkefet spread," non-dageshed begedkefet's fricativised to
> clearly distinguish them from the dageshed counterparts.
> I can summarize as follows: introduction of the dagesh kal reduced
> aspiration in some instances (made the relevant sounds "more plosified"),
> and in response to this process, the other instances became fricativised.
>
>  
I accept "less aspirated", and perhaps "reduced aspiration". Very likely 
the first stage of change was a distinction in aspiration - which is 
actually found in English, in which plosive following "s" are not 
aspirated. I don't think we can tell in which direction the change 
happened. (But the structure of the Greek alphabet suggests that 
Phoenician pe, taw and kaf were not aspirated, as they became the Greek 
unaspirated pi, tau and kappa, and new letters were added (and tet 
redefined) for the aspirated versions.) At a later stage, the more 
aspirated plosives became fricativised. It is not clear to me whether 
this process took place before or  after the Masoretes - but it does 
seem to have preceded the split between Ashkenazim and Sephardim.

Where I continue to differ from you is in the assumption that these 
processes could have taken place only in singing.

> > In fact the raw data says nothing about the direction of change.
> >
> >    
>
> There are some indications.
> We know that the Greeks didn't generally use tau for tav, so presumably tav
> was aspirated, with strictly plosive variety appearing in response to dagesh
> kal.  ...
>  

The Greek treatment of tav with dagesh hazaq is interesting (and I know 
Karl has looked at this one). Hebrew names like Mattanya, Mattenai and 
Mattatya are written in LXX sometimes with double theta, sometimes with 
double tau, and sometimes with tau-theta. The name Matthew in the New 
Testament, presumably a variant of one of these names, is spelled with 
double  theta in the earliest NT MSS but with tau-theta in later, 
Byzantine ones (hence Russian "Matfey", theta later became F, but in 
spelling only under the Communists) - and "tth" in Latin. What this 
suggests to me is that the Hebrew name was pronounced with a geminated 
aspirated plosive, which was well represented by double theta in Koine; 
but when theta became fricativised in Greek, this spelling was known to 
be misleading and so it was adjusted to preserve the plosive sounds, and 
avoid the complete fricativisation which in fact took place in English.

> ... Phei appears in Vulgate as ph, so it also was aspirated, and pei appeared
> because of dagesh kal. Similarly with chaf.
> Bet, however, often appears in Vulgate as "b." Synodal Bible, however,
> universally employs "v," with major exceptions of Abram and Helbon. ...
>  

The reason for this is a change in pronunciation of Greek beta, which 
changed from a b sound to a  v sound between the translation of LXX and 
the translation from LXX of the Slavonic Bible. Indeed the Cyrillic 
alphabet itself shows this: the letter pronounced V has the shape of 
Greek beta, i.e. B.

In fact the Russian Synodal Bible has Avram, not Abram, e.g. in Genesis 
12:1, also the longer form Avraam. But these come from LXX, and so are 
not evidence of fricativisation in Hebrew. The form Abram(-ov, -ovich) 
is familiar in Russia because it is used by Jews (and perhaps Poles?), 
and this is in fact perhaps evidence for late fricativisation among 
Hebrew-speaking Russian  Jews.

> ...
>
> Another evidence against dagesh as gemination is mappiq, which is evidently
> the same sign as dagesh.  We know that hey do not geminate.
> Mappiq--dagesh--in hey could only mean stop. ...

I agree that mappiq is not a sign of gemination. But what it has in 
common with dagesh is that both are fundamentally a sign of a  harder or 
more distinct pronunciation. There is no stop before a pronounced final 
h sound, as I am sure opera singers can confirm to you.

> Similarly with dagesh in waw.
> But the main argument against dagesh as gemination, in my opinion, is
> metaphysical. The Masoretes were painfully honest. They marked many words
> which they did not understand, but didn't attempt to change these words.
> They were likely versed in gematry. They would not dream of changing the
> sacred letters, like doubling them--affecting the roots, the meaning
> (gemination in two-letter roots), and possibly the gematrical values.
>  

I agree with your evidence but it does not support your thesis.

>  
>
> > ... Can you give me any examples of names in the Slavonic
> > or  Russian Bible which are based directly on Hebrew not via LXX? ... 
> >
> >    
> This is, indeed, a major difference. Using "v" where the LXX has beta is
> another instance. I recall reading several examples in Steinberg, but just
> don't remember them off-hand.
>
>  
"v" for beta is not an instance, as proved above. If you want to 
continue your assertion, I suggest you go away and check Steinberg, 
because until I see some examples I am not going to believe that there 
are any.

Well, maybe Helbon in Ezekiel 27:18 is an example, although not of what 
you quoted it as: Hebrew bet with dagesh, LXX beta, Russian B rather 
than V. But this single letter could be a typo in the Russian Bible, or 
a change for euphony or to avoid a bad word. So we need more than one 
isolated example.


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



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 10/02/2005