Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>]

On 19/10/2005 10:00, Vadim Cherny wrote:

> > > > I suggest only one possible inaccuracy, in the transliteration of 
> > > > Keturah.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > What's wrong with that? Kof aspirated in non-accented syllable. ...
> >
> >
> >
> > My point is simply that this is the one exception to an otherwise 
> > simple rule, that qof is transliterated as kappa, and kaf as chi.
>
>
> Simply the rule is defined too narrowly without considering the 
> environment. (Joel doesn't see the environment, and reaches wrong 
> conclusion on erratic differences between LXX and MT.)
> Schwa in antepenult syllables is vocal (k(e)turAh) because of 
> apportioning the air flow (pretonic schwa, on the contrary, is 
> silent), and likewise consonants in antepenults are in a sense 
> "vocal," aspirated. Thus kof as chi.


I was simply putting forward a provisional hypothesis. I found that this 
explained all of Joel's list (consonants only) except for this one case. 
At this point we have two alternatives: one is to refine the hypothesis, 
perhaps along the lines which you suggest; the other is to write off 
occasional exceptions as due to some kind of corruption. But my point 
remains, that my provisional hypothesis accounts for nearly all of the 
changes without requiring that Hebrew pronunciation has changed greatly 
since LXX times. You also don't seem to see any great changes in Hebrew 
pronunciation. So I think we can agree that there is no good evidence, 
at least that has been presented yet, to prove that the LXX translators 
pronounced Hebrew consonants very differently from the Masoretes.

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