Biblical Hebrew Forum

[kgraham0938 AT comcast.net]

Hello Peter, 

I am curious about your statement about WAYIH:YW = become as opposed to 
'were.'  What do you think is the difference btw Judges 16:30 and Genesis 
2:25?

WAYIH:YW $N"HEM `RWMMIYM....  would you translate this as "They became 
naked.." or am I misreading your point?  Thanks

--
Kelton Graham 
KGRAHAM0938 AT comcast.net

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org> 

> On 03/10/2006 18:08, Chris and Nel wrote: 
> > ... I am so used to 
> > reading sentences without "to be " in them that I still can not fathom 
> > its 
> > purpose here, considering that without it I actually arrived at the 
> > correct 
> > translation without looking at the English. 
> > 
> > Now can someone be kind enough pleeeease..... to relieve me of my making 
> > a 
> > fool of 
> > myself on this board? 
> > 
> > 
> The distinction may be that sentences in which "to be" is omitted are 
> usually (always?) stative, indicating a continuing state, like English 
> "be", whereas those starting with WAYHIY, and here with its plural form 
> WAYIHYUW, indicate actions, like English "became". Thus a literal 
> translation would be "And the dead... became more than the dead...". The 
> meaning is of course "More people died... than...", an action. A 
> translation like Kelton's "Those who were dead ... *were* many, more 
> than..." is misleading because it suggests a state, a count of bodies 
> already dead. But in fact we have an action here, a large number of 
> people dying. (Dare I suggest a prototype of today's suicide bombers, 
> except here we have an Israelite killing Gentiles in Gaza?) 
> 
> -- 
> Peter Kirk 
> E-mail: peter AT qaya.org 
> Blog: http://speakertruth.blogspot.com/ 
> Website: http://www.qaya.org/ 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> b-hebrew mailing list 
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org 
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew 
>From leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il  Tue Oct  3 19:06:56 2006
Return-Path: <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from mtaout1.012.net.il (mtaout1.012.net.il [84.95.2.1])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C6C74C00D
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Tue,  3 Oct 2006 19:06:55 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from xp ([87.68.49.91])
        by i_mtaout1.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2004.12)
        with SMTP id <0J6L00I6R1SWY421 AT i_mtaout1.012.net.il> for
        b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org; Wed, 04 Oct 2006 01:12:38 +0200 (IST)
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 01:05:40 +0200
From: Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>
To: b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Message-id: <000e01c6e740$727fa910$a8eb15ac@xp>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-priority: Normal
References: <200610031822.k93IMVn24403342 AT tamar.os.biu.ac.il>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.8
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Kamatz katan
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.8
Precedence: list
List-Id: Biblical Hebrew Forum <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 23:06:56 -0000

The problem with this assumption, is the plain fact that the kamatz =
katan fulfills a perfectly valid function. Every vowel in Hebrew has a =
long and short form: Tsere and segol for E, hiriq with or without a yod =
for I, shuruq and qubutz for U, and also Kamatz (gadol) and Patah for A. =
Since the "vav" of the Holam is fairly arbitrary and does not effect =
pronounciation, there would have to be a symbol for the short O, to be =
used whenever a short vowel is called for. This is especially true of  =
the Hataph-kamatz. In all other cases the Hataph only goes with a short =
vowels - Hataph patah and hataph segol. Just as there is no such thing =
as a hataph-tsere, the fact that there is a hataph-kamatz shows that the =
kamatz is meant to be a "shorth" one.

Yigal Levin
  ----- Original Message -----=20
  From: YODAN=20
  To: leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il=20
  Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 8:20 PM
  Subject: RE: [b-hebrew] Kamatz katan; Ashkenazi pronunciation;was: =
Translating


  I believe that it is well established that the Masoretes used an =
identical pronunciation for what grammarians later classified as two =
types of Kamatz vowels.  The Masoretic pronunciation is believed to be =
like the English "au" or "aw" similar to that of traditional Ashkenazi =
and Yemenite pronunciations of these vowels (which are pronounced =
identically in these two pronunciations). =20

  =20

  The fact that the original symbol of kamatz (see the Leningrad Codex =
and Aleppo Codex) was not like a T letter (which is the current symbol =
of both Kamatz vowels) but, rather, as a horizontal line under which =
there is a dot.  This is believed to reflect the pronunciation of kamatz =
by the Masoretes - as something in between Patah (ah) and Holam (oh) - =
which is how au or aw is pronounced.

  =20

  The Sephardi pronunciation, which did not develop from the Masoretic =
pronunciation but, rather, from the other Israeli pronunciation (called =
sometimes "Palestinian" Hebrew, reflecting the name of the Land of =
Israel during the Roman period and beyond. having nothing to do with the =
current use of "Palestinian") had two different pronunciations for what =
the Masoretes had a single pronunciation.  The Sephardi pronunciation =
for kamatz that developed from an original long AH is kamatz gadol (or =
Rahav) and is pronounced by Sepharadim (and now also in Israeli Hebrew) =
like Patah, whereas the kamatz that developed from an original UH vowel =
is called kamatz katan (hatuf) and is pronounced in Sepharadi and =
Israeli Hebrew as OH (like Holam).  In practically all cases of kamatz =
katan there is an underlying word with kubutz or shuruk (UH) or holam =
(OH) vowel, and this is a useful way to recognize kamatz katan, =
particularly in cases where applying kamatz katan rules is not =
straightforward (especially when it's difficult to decide if a shva is =
naH or nA).

  =20

  Rivka Sherman-Gold

  Yodan Publishing

  =20

  -----Original Message-----
  From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org =
[mailto:b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of =
leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il
  Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 6:18 AM
  To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Kamatz katan; Ashkenazi pronunciation;was: =
Translating

  =20

  I think that the real question about the Kamatz katan is not when its

  pronounced - the rules are pretty clear, though there are different

  customs. The real question is, why the mesoretes used the same symbol =
for

  two different (albeit related) vowels: the long a and the short o. =
Could it

  be that THEY pronounced them both the same? If so, how, as a long a or =
as a

  short o?

  =20

  Yigal Levin

  =20

  Original Message:

  -----------------

  From: Vadim Cherny VadimCherny AT mail.ru

  Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 10:36:51 +0300

  To: yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com, b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

  Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Kamatz katan; Ashkenazi pronunciation;was:

  Translating

  =20

  =20

  From: "Yitzhak Sapir"

  > Why is this so?  My working explanation is starts with the fact that

  > among the many situations in Semitic that later developed to a =
qamatz

  > in Hebrew, is a large class of instances that had a long "a".  =
Hebrew

  > Phoenician, and Canaanite developed long "a" into "o".  Aramaic and

  > Arabic did not.  The qamatz was part of this "long a to o" change.  =
This

  > is the point where the Massoretes codified the vowels, so this is =
the

  > stage the vowels represent.  It appears to me, that later, probably =
under

  > Arabic influence (which did not have the long a to o change), the =
words

  > which had Arabic parallels with a long a, were reread with the =
qamats

  > signifying "long a" again.  In non-Arabic speaking countries, this =
did not

  > happen.  This change is one of the basic differences between =
"Ashkenazi"

  > pronunciation and "Sefardi" pronunciation, Sefardi signifying spain =
and

  > Arabic speaking countries, while Ashkanzi signifies other European

  > countries.  However, the Massoretes also used a qamats in situations

  > that originally developed from other "non long a" cases.  The Arabic =
did

  > not have a "long a" in those cases and so did not influence the =
reading of

  > Hebrew.   Those are the situations of "qamats qatan", where the =
original

  > qamats sound of "ow" remained.  This is one such case.  The original

  > Semitic root behind this word is ")ukl", and this developed in =
Biblical

  > Hebrew, without a suffix, as ")okel".  Here, because of the suffix, =
the

  "o"

  > in ")okel" apparently became the "ow" of a "qamats".

  =20

  The difference between kamatz and kamatz katan is rather simple.

  Kamatz becomes katan in closed unaccented syllables.

  Long a shortens to short o. [Long a elongates to au - long o. =
Similarly,

  short a + u produces short o.]

  =20

  The difference between Sephardi and Ashkenazi is also clear. It =
relates to

  Germanized initial stress shift.

  davAr - dAvar (initial stress shift of Germanized pronunciation) - =
dA:var

  (elongation of open stressed vowel) - dOvar (a: - au - o) - dOv'r

  (post-tonic vowel reduced without gemination). Now, there appears a =
problem

  that two similar kamatz in davar are read differently. To solve that, =
open

  stressed syllable is closed with iod which protects the next vowel, =
dOv'r -

  dOivor. First o is long, the second is short.

  =20

  I discuss those transformations at the end of

  http://vadimcherny.org/hebrew/protohewbrew_single_vowel.htm

  =20

  Vadim Cherny

  =20

  _______________________________________________

  b-hebrew mailing list

  b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

  http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

  =20

  =20

  --------------------------------------------------------------------

  mail2web - Check your email from the web at

  http://mail2web.com/ .

  =20

  =20

  _______________________________________________

  b-hebrew mailing list

  b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

  http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew