Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>]

On 08/02/2006 02:08, Yitzhak Sapir wrote:

> ... In this case, my argument is
> that while internal mater lectionis are found in pre-exilic
> documents, in the case of this particular noun form,
> they are absent whereas in the Biblical spelling one or
> both are usually present.  That's a difference that needs
> to be explained by someone who claims there's practically
> no difference.  It can't be answered simply because in
> some other noun form or word there is a mater lectionis.
> I never said there wasn't.
>
>   
But it can be answered by pointing out that in all periods of Hebrew 
from early inscriptional right up to modern there is inconsistency in 
spelling, especially of long I and O vowels, between full spellings with 
matres lectionis and "defective" spellings with no letter (rather than 
point) marking the vowel. We know that in Masoretic and modern Hebrew 
the difference between full and defective spelling does not imply a 
pronunciation difference. This is highly probable also for a much 
earlier stage, as surely no one would argue that דויד DWYD in Chronicles 
was ever pronounced differently from דוד DWD in Samuel and Kings. Thus 
it is very uncertain and highly speculative to suggest that at any stage 
of Hebrew differences in the use of matres lectionis reflect real 
pronunciation change, rather than just a change in writing conventions.

I note that this consistent difference in some spellings between 
pre-exilic and post-exilic books is also evidence that the spelling of 
pre-exilic books was not consistently updated to post-exilic 
conventions. But it does seem to have been partly so updated.


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