Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>]

laurent,

What I mean by anything can be explained one way or another is that  
some people may construe an explanation to this unusual punctuation.  
See for instance the reply of Yitzhak Sapir.
Few more words on the XATAP PATAX. I see that some books (Biblia  
Hebraica Stuttgartensia) in case of a double letter will now and then  
follow the punctuation: צָלֲלוּ Ex 15:10, וְגָלֲלוּ  
Gen 29:3,8, due to a punctuator possibly thinking that it would be  
good to separate the double letter by a vowel to avoid the reading  
CALU, GALU. But we also find קִלְלַת Deut 21:23, חַלְלֵי  
Sam I 17:52, בְּעַנְנִי Gen 9:14. My school Hebrew bible has  
these words always with a schwa.
Sometimes the purpose of this punctuation is obscure: אֵרֲדָה  
Gen 18:21, תֹּאכֲלֶנּוּ Num 18:10, הוּטֲלוּ Jer  
22:28. My school Hebrew bible has these words always with a schwa.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Mar 3, 2009, at 2:24 PM, Laurent Pinchard wrote:

> Isaac, thanks very much for your answer. This is indeed what I  
> thought, both editions I have mention hatuf patah but a third one  
> that I have (Vigouroux)mentions shewa which reflects your version  
> as well.
>
> If you say "anything can be explained one way or another.", what  
> rationale would you give to hatuf patah, then ? to me this is  
> definitely an error and no support can be given for a lamed with  
> hatuf patah. Would you be able to explain such a deviant though?
>
> laurent
>
> De : Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>
> À : Laurent Pinchard <ougaritique AT yahoo.fr>
> Cc : b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Envoyé le : Lundi, 2 Mars 2009, 13h24mn 57s
> Objet : Re: hatuf patah under the lamed (LHBDYL) in Gen 1,18 and  
> Lev 10,10
>
> Laurent,
>
> It is possibly a mistake or a deviant. My Hebrew bible from school  
> has a schwa under the L in both Genesis and Leviticus, and it is so  
> also in the on-line bible of mechon-mamre at http://www.mechon- 
> mamre.org/i/t/t0.htm
> Of course anything can be explained one way or another.
>
> Isaac Fried, Boston University
>
> On Mar 2, 2009, at 6:19 AM, Laurent Pinchard wrote:
>
> > dear Isaac,
> >
> > would you know why in Gen 1,18 we have a hatuf patah under the  
> > lamed (LHBDYL), which I don't understand: this semi vowel never  
> > appears under lamed as a preposition. Note that I have this from  
> > the BHS edition. Interestingly Leviticus 10,10 also mentions the  
> > same lamed with hatuf patah on the same word. Elsewhere any word  
> > starting with W(shuruk)LH-- would have as anticipated a patah or a  
> > shewa. Is this hatuf patah under the lamed a mistake? if not what  
> > is the rationale ?
> >
> > laurent