Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

On 10/8/07, Yaakov Stein wrote:
> > I disagree regarding the Siloam inscription.
>
> Yitzhak
>
> Just out of interest, do you consider all the internal Ws in the
> inscription,
> such as B(WD (twice) and HMWC) as consonantal ?
> I thought that most people agreed that this dipthongal contraction had
> happened
> by late first temple times.
>
> And how do you read the aleph in R)$ ?
>
> Do you also disagree as to the final W, as in R(W ?

You can read what I wrote about this here:
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew/2007-August/033488.html
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew/2007-September/033499.html

The ) in R)$ is probably consonantal.  The most reasonable vocalization
for R)$ is [ra?a:$i:] or [ra?a:$e:], that is a plural, possibly in the oblique
case.  The only reason not to read a plural in this word is because of a
steadfast belief that all final long vowels are represented with matres
lectionis.  But this is unlikely even for Old Aramaic, which has the most
widespread use of matres lectionis from very early on.

HMWC) is the most (and perhaps only) compelling case for an internal
mater lectionis in this inscription.  This does not even compare to the
Fekherye inscription, but still, it is a compelling case.  Possibly, in
certain words where an associated verb had a clear indication of a waw,
the waw was written even though it had originally contracted.  In this
case, the verb was obviously YC) / WC).  However, this could also be
the result of analogy which had reinstated the waw in these forms --
hence the transliteration a-u-si-)a for Ho$e( -- from the verb Y$( / W$(.

Yitzhak Sapir