Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Masoretic invention, was: masorete pointing v's LLX transliterations

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
  • To: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Masoretic invention, was: masorete pointing v's LLX transliterations
  • Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 22:54:23 +0100

On 25/07/2005 15:55, Rolf Furuli wrote:

Dear Peter,

The Masoretes would not dream of changing anything or invent anything new. Their
aim was to reproduce the consonantal text accurately and to point and
vocalize the text exactly as they heard it read in the Synagogue. However,
in one respect they had a problem which can be illustrated with modern Greek
(I used this example at my defence). In Greek there are several letters
that are pronounced as the English "e" is pronounced, in exactly the same
way. Many errors are the result of this situation when people write down
what they hear others say, because they must all the time make choices of which letters to write.

A similar situation existed when the Masorets worked on the text. ...


This seems highly improbable to me. The Masoretes, who invented vowel pointing, would not have invented separate signs for the same pronunciation. So it is clear that there must have been some distinction between sheva and patah (and also hataf patah of course), even if both or all three sounded most like "a" to our ears, or to Greek ears. Part of the distinction was almost certainly one of length.

... On the
basis of transcriptions made by Josephus and Origen we see that the Hebrew
vowels were consistently transcribed except patah and shewa, and to some
extent segol. The vowels patah and shewa were both pronounced as an
"a"-sound in Masoretic times, ...


Well, the only evidence you have suggested for this is from centuries earlier, and was inconsistent. Note that only today, in a different context, Harold wrote that sheva could be transcribed into Greek as iota or epsilon as well as alpha.

... and by hearing the text recited a distinction
between the two could have been problematic. These two vowels represent the
basis for WEQATAL and WAYYIQTOL, and if the Masoretes could not distingish
between the two vowels when the text was read, they had to choose between them on the basis of
other means than hearing. ...


No, the Masoretes, if they are not innovators, would surely have been entirely consistent in their rendering of these forms unless they heard a real distinction. You have also ignored here the significant point that in WAYYIQTOL the yod, or tav or nun in other forms of the verb, has a dagesh, which for the Masoretes implied a real difference in pronunciation - especially for the tav which would sound quite different in a WAYYIQTOL form from a WEYIQTOL. Also in 1st person singular forms there are very different vowel forms before alef (pointed with segol): qamets as "compensatory lengthening" in WAYYIQTOL, but probably hataf segol in WEYIQTOL.

... Narrative texts were probably stressed differently
from hortatory ones and other texts when they were recited, ...


Is there any evidence of this different stress? If so, it ought to be clear from the accents, which record the stress patterns in some detail.

... and this could
help the Masoretes. They could also see particular patterns (WAW+YIQTOL used
for the past and WAW+QATAL used for the future), and on this basis they made
their choices.

The basis for the conclusions above is, 1) the fact that there is no
distinction between WAYYIQTOL, WEYIQTOL, and YIQTOL on the one hand and
QATAL and WEQATAL on the other before the Masoretes, ...


Not true. WAYYIQTOL forms are consonantally distinct from WEYIQTOL in certain verbs such as "lamed-he", where the WAYYIQTOL forms are apocopated but WEYIQTOL are not. There is also evidence from the transliterated Hebrew in Origen's Hexapla if I remember correctly, although its interpretation is debatable.

... 2) the inconsistency in
Masoretic pointing if WAYYIQTOL and WEQATAL have one uniform meaning
respectively, ...

Presuming you mean WAYYIQTOL and WEYIQTOL here, you certainly need the condition. Yes, if you assume that two different forms are in fact different spellings of the same form, you get inconsistent spelling. But if you assume the consistent spelling which the Masoretes are well known for, the implication is that there are two different forms which probably have two different meanings. No wonder your external examiner was so critical here.

... 3) the analysis of all verb forms which shows there is no
semantic difference between YIQTOL and WAYYIQTOL and between QATAL and
WEQATAL, ...


No, your analysis does not show this. It cannot show this, because it starts by assuming this. If you assume something and then at the end of all kind of study apparently prove the truth of your assumption, by simple logic it is impossible that you have really proved your assumption. The best that you can hope to prove is that your assumption is consistent.

...
This is the first example of how Hebrew grammarians can be led astray when
no distinction is made between semantic and pragmatic factors, when a pragmatic system is interpreted as a semantic one.. But this subject I will not discuss with you, because in this case we live in two
linguistically different worlds and speak two different languages.


Well, all I will say here is that I don't believe that you have demonstrated that the differences are pragmatic rather than semantic. You have simply assumed that certain distinctions (which have traditionally been considered semantic) are not semantic, and so naturally the only way that you can remain consistent is to claim that the distinctions are pragmatic.

--
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: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.4/57 - Release Date: 22/07/2005





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page