Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Initial "Beged Kefet" consonants always have a...

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Vadim Cherny" <VadimCherny AT mail.ru>
  • To: "Dr. Joel M. Hoffman" <joel AT exc.com>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Initial "Beged Kefet" consonants always have a...
  • Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 21:13:30 +0300


>The point is, however, that the LXX transliterations are reasonably
consistent with the Masoretes. Dagesh kal is the only difference - that stop

It's getting difficult for me to keep up with the deluge of messages
on this topic, but I'll try to reply briefly at least to this one.

Dagesh Kal is of course not the only difference. We have already
established that the syllabification differs (e.g., Rikva / Rebekka).

Nope. Rivkah has two syllables only in modern pronunciation. Can't disregard schwa just becaue you don't pronounce it. Fricativisation of bet helps you to omit schwa, which is otherwise reasonably distinct. Stress on the first, RIb(e)kah or rather RIbh'kah.

We further find that the LXX has double letters that frequently do not
correspond to anything in the Tiberian version.

Stress shift, that's it. Greek has different stress pattern from Hebrew. You don't mean that Russian Иван is not consistent with English Ivan just because the stress varies.

Additionally, we find inconsistent koof/kaf and tet/taf distinctions,

Only because you defined the consistence too narrowly. No two languages have letter-for-letter correspondence, I guess. Latin u does not have one English equivalent. According to your logic, that means that Latin writing system is wrong. Guess you don't think so.
The same consonants soound differently in different environments, and such changes differ between languages. So there couldn't be letter-for-letter correspondence, but only reasonably complex enviromental correspondences, accounting for stress patterns, different aspiration of similar sounds in both languages, different vowel length. What was RIbh'kah for Jews, could be RebEka (->RebEkka) for Greeks with perhaps less aspirated beta. Now onder they took /h'/ for a separate vowel.

And the vowels compare very poorly.

Hm. Ever tried comparing vowels across languages? Vowels are different in Russian Иван and English Ivan. So what? Vowels are even different regionally for English speakers, for that matter.

Joel, you invent some unreasonably narrow rules of correspondence and then wonder why they don't hold.

As with many of your messages, here you account for one observation in
a way that contradicts your other accounts. Here you assume that the
LXX forms were the original ones, but for Rebekka you assume that the
TH form was original.

Didn't get it. How could I assume that LXX forms are the original? What I say, is that LXX reasonably, with understandable changes reflect the expected - Masoretic - pronunciation.

This is another example. Your claim that XuPah naturally becomes
Oxxoffa because the Greeks took a breath before x is inconsistent
with, e.g., Xava vs. Eua. Yet again, look at the table:

Wasn't claim; a mere suggestion of unexplored possibility.
Take another option: since the only instance of HUphphah is in the form LeHuphpha, that le quite possibly accounts for the initial o.

Vadim Cherny




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page