Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Dr. Joel M. Hoffman" <joel AT exc.com>]

>Dear Joel,
>
>What is your opinion of the study cited here?
>http://hebphil.blogspot.com/2005/11/short-vowels-in-hexapla.html

I haven't seen the study (from Leshonenu), and I don't have a copy of
the Hexapla here, but if the blogger's description is accurate, I have
some problems.  Just from the table in my NYU book (which, BTW, just
came out in paperpack), I know:

1.  HA'EL is Alpha-Eta-Lamed, with an Eta representing Masoretic
    TZERE.  According to the blog, SHMO "his name" is SEMO, with an
    Epsilon, not with an Eta.

2.  Masoretic DARKO is DERKO in the Sec., with an Epsilon representing
    Masoretic PATACH (or perhaps underlying SEGOL).

So it doesn't look like much of a pattern.

Also (again to judge by the blog), in "most instances" we see a
pattern.  The Sec. is so short and so riddled with errors that even
"most of the time" could be a coincidence.  This possibility becomes
even more likely if we conflate Eta/Epsilon and Segol/Tzere.

I also think that the statement, "He therefore suggests, that in the
time of Origens [sic] the shwa mobile still had the quality of the
original vowels" (from the blogger) is at best misleading.  There was
no shwa until the Masoretes.  One interesting question is whether SHMO
was monosyllabic or bisyllabic, and during which periods of Hebrew,
but both the presentation and question mask the real question.

I don't know enough about Origen's Greek to know if his dialect
allowed words that begin SHM-, so it may be hard to learn much about
the word from the transliteration.  But I also maintain that
transliterations are inherently unreliable.  For example, the modern
English transliteration of "shema" for both Hebrew SHEMA ("perhaps")
and SH'MA ("hear!") is misleading.
http://www.exc.com/JoelHoffman/Excerpts/ITB-p88.pdf has some more
examples.

Still, I'm going to try to find a copy of the original paper.

-Joel

Joel M. Hoffman, PhD
http://www.exc.com/JoelHoffman