Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

> > My Question was about Origen's use of vowels. If he, where the Masoretes
> > used shewa, used the original vowel, and he used OU- both for
> > WAYYAIQTOL  and WEYIQTOL, wouldn't that mean that both forms in his view
> > had the same vowel?
> >
> Surely Origen's OU- (omicron, upsilon) doesn't represent a vowel at all,
> but, according to common usage in Greek transcription, the consonant
> sound [w]. So I would want to ask what follows this OU-: a consonant
> (and if so, is it ever doubled?), or a vowel, and if so which vowel? Are
> there any differences in the patterns between WAYYIQTOL and WEYIQTOL
> verbs, as recorded by the Masoretes? Since you say that there are only
> 18 such verb forms surviving from the Hexapla, perhaps it would be
> possible to share these 18 with the list, with their Masoretic
> equivalents or their references.

My Russian ear hears apostrophe (schwa) as ы, the sound very close to u/ou.

I agree with Rolf in doubting that we/wa were different before the Masoretes. 
Absence of gemination in wayiqtols in Hexapla (I'm not aware of other 
manuscripts) proves that wa prefix did not exist. Prefix wa- is 
semi-stressed, just like ha-, and should cause post-tonic gemination (dagesh 
hazak).
Hebrew has universal reversive device, waw (w', not wa).
Why the Masoretes recorded wa? Because they heard it - in chanting. In some 
environments, w' elongated to full we with tzere sound. Because of the 
secondary stress, we- caused post-tonic gemination, which closed we syllable 
with stop. Composite vowels (tzere, holam) reduce to patah in closed accented 
syllables. Thus appeared wa.

Vadim Cherny