Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Vadim Cherny" <VadimCherny AT mail.ru>]

> >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