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: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
  • 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: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 11:52:06 +0100

On 23/10/2005 16:54, Dr. Joel M. Hoffman wrote:

...


I don't make that assumption at all, and, in fact, that's the
viewpoint I'm arguing *against*. I assume that the Tiberian forms *do
not* capture the more ancient forms. It is others on this list who
think that they do.

I pointed out that the evidence from the LXX is in general
inconclusive, but it *does not* support the view that the Tiberian
forms correctly capture the ancient Biblical sounds of Hebrew.

I'm actually shocked that people do believe that the Tiberian forms
(which, we have seen, do not match the LXX forms or the other
Masoretic forms) reflect pronunciation from 1,000 years earlier.


In case you think that this is something I have said, I have not. I have simply stated that as far as I can see LXX does not provide evidence against this possibility. You admit that "I assume that the Tiberian forms *do not* capture the more ancient forms." You are probably right because languages change over 1000+ years, but I am asking you not to simply assume this, but to present some evidence for it - and I don't think that evidence is in LXX, at least certainly not in a conclusive way; for I agree with you that:

... the most likely
is that the LXX does such a poor job recording transliterations that
we should not draw any conclusions from it. ...


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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page