Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Uri Hurwitz <uhurwitz AT yahoo.com>]

  Karl,
   
   Yes, the very early pronounciation could have been  "....ahu" or "..ehu"
   because an argument can be made that the H, since it was 
  written down,  was initially pronounced as a consonant, with a vowel 
  attached to it. That is, it didn't just serve as the vowel O as  would
   appear from much later vowelling in the MT. But here we're treading in a
  speculative field.
   
     As for the F s 3rd  pronominal suffix pronounciation,one is on firmer
   ground. In this case the  consonantal H can be definietly traced back to 
  an early stage reflected in the Arabic F s 3rd suffix. ...HA  , equivalent
   to the Hebrew He  Aleph. This is clearly indicated by  the "Mapik" in the 
  vowelled MT which servs as a residual reminder of an ancient  A  vowel
   of the final He. 
   
    Uri

Uri:    On 8/18/07, Uri Hurwitz <uhurwitz at yahoo.com> wrote:  >    As to 
the relationship between the two homonyms   LO   (lamed aleph -  >    "NO"),  
and  LO  (lamed waw -- "TO HIM"),  here again it pays to consult  >    Arabic 
, because,  like in so many other cases, it preserves earlier stages  >    of 
the language. The spelling of  "NO" in Ar.-- "LA,"  is the  equivalent of the 
 >    Heb.lamed aleph, while the spelling of  "TO HIM"  is --LaHW   
pronounced  >   "Lahu". Obviously the "H" was dropped by the time of the 
consonsntal text  >    of the HB.  >  >  >      Interestingly the same occurs 
in some spoken Arabic dialects.  >  >     Uri Hurwitz    If you look at the 
earliest Hebrew, particularly Genesis, there are  several cases where the 
third person singular masculine suffix was  written with a heh; could the 
pronunciation have been "-ahu"? Later  contracted to -W to differentiate it 
from the feminine?    Karl W. Randolph.  

       
---------------------------------
Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, 
when. 
>From kwrandolph AT gmail.com  Tue Aug 21 11:56:12 2007
Return-Path: <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com (wx-out-0506.google.com [66.249.82.231])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F1664C014
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Tue, 21 Aug 2007 11:56:12 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id h30so1690064wxd
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Tue, 21 Aug 2007 08:56:12 -0700 
(PDT)
Received: by 10.90.102.20 with SMTP id z20mr2265157agb.1187711771304;
        Tue, 21 Aug 2007 08:56:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.100.154.17 with HTTP; Tue, 21 Aug 2007 08:56:11 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <acd782170708210856h1242200bi79b51dbb9b552de0 AT mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 08:56:11 -0700
From: "K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
In-Reply-To: <56791.36322.qm AT web51607.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <56791.36322.qm AT web51607.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] final aleph
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
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, 21 Aug 2007 15:56:12 -0000

Dear Uri:

Thanks. I had always been puzzled at the cases where the third person
masc. suffix had been written with a heh instead of waw, this answers
it.

Karl W. Randolph.

On 8/21/07, Uri Hurwitz <uhurwitz AT yahoo.com> wrote:
>   Karl,
>
>    Yes, the very early pronounciation could have been  "....ahu" or "..ehu"
>    because an argument can be made that the H, since it was
>   written down,  was initially pronounced as a consonant, with a vowel
>   attached to it. That is, it didn't just serve as the vowel O as  would
>    appear from much later vowelling in the MT. But here we're treading in a
>   speculative field.
>
>      As for the F s 3rd  pronominal suffix pronounciation,one is on firmer
>    ground. In this case the  consonantal H can be definietly traced back to
>   an early stage reflected in the Arabic F s 3rd suffix. ...HA  , equivalent
>    to the Hebrew He  Aleph. This is clearly indicated by  the "Mapik" in the
>   vowelled MT which servs as a residual reminder of an ancient  A  vowel
>    of the final He.
>
>     Uri