Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Kevin Riley" <klriley AT alphalink.com.au>]

-------Original Message------- 
 
From: Yitzhak Sapir 
Date: 17/03/2009 4:48:50 AM 
To: B-Hebrew 
Subject: Re: [B-Hebrew] ancient transliterations of names 
 
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Rivka Sherman Gold wrote: 
> Yitzhak and Fred, thank you for the responses. 
> 
> I'd like to rephrase my question a bit. I'm trying to find out if an
ancient 
> (pre-Tiberian vocalization) pronunciation of the name of Ruth
mother-in-law 
> had an OH vowel sound as the vowel of NUN. This is as opposed to an AH
vowel 
> sound. 
> 
> My focus is not long vs. Short vowels/sounds, but the actual vowel-sound. 
> 
> What I'm referring to as OH is the O in Ohel (=tent) or Kodesh (=holiness)
 
> not like the way the Tiberians pronounced a Kamatz (sort of like AW in 
> Awesome). 
> 
> Based on both your answers it seems to me that an ancient pronunciation
was 
> indeed with an OH sound. 
 
Where did I say that? 
 
> Do you agree or disagree - and why? And any other responses are welcome. 
 
I think it was a qamats sound, much like the way Tiberians pronounced the 
Qamats centuries later, and much like the way Ashkenazi Jews pronounce 
The qamats today. 
 
The Greek transcription does not allow us to identify a qamats from a holam.

The use of an omega could stand for either a long qamats or a long holam. 
However, it is more likely the sound was originally a qamats rather than a 
Holam. First, this way we don't have to suppose any change along the way 
To Tiberian pronunciation. There was a qamats sound back then, and it 
Was retained all the way to Tiberian pronunciation. If we suppose a holam 
Sound, we would have to explain why this holam sound became a qamats 
In Tiberian, and in other cases a holam did not. This also brings me to the 
Second issue, which is: it seems to me that a qamats would more likely 
Develop to a holam (as it did later in some dialects of Hebrew) than that 
A holam would develop to a qamats. You'd have to consult studies on 
Typological analyses for that, though. 
 
In other words, you start out with the choice (as you put it): OH vs AH. 
But really, you have three choices (in your terms): OH vs AH vs AW. 
 
It seems to me it was originally neither OH nor AH, but AW. 
 
Yitzhak Sapir 

But, did not qamats develop from an earlier long A?  The question then is
when that happened.  Was it before the LXX was written, or was it later? 
Yes, the development from AW -> AH or AW -> OH is more likely than OH -> AW,
and fits with the development of Hebrew better.  But again, you need some
way of knowing at what point in time one can assume the development to have
occurred.  This is one case where checking what other systems have would be
worthwhile.  Is the word pointed with AH or OH pointing in the other
systems?  Your point about holam developing to qamats is a good one - is
there evidence for holam becoming qamats?  The Greek transliteration
certainly does not rule out the possibility that it was qamats and
pronounced AW.

Kevin Riley