Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

To muddy the waters again, at the time the LXX was written, OMEGA may still
have had it's original open sound, and therefore was more like AW than OH. I
would wonder though whether the Hebrew of the time had the distinctions that
the Massoretes noted, or whether it was closer to some of the other pointing
systems and had only AH and OH, with no AW - in other words, a short/long 5
vowel system. If length was significant in Hebrew and Greek at this time,
whether the Hebrew long O was open or close, it would still be likely to be
represented as OMEGA in Greek, as that is the only long O vowel available.
You cannot ignore the issue of length in arriving at your conclusion. 
 
Kevin Riley 
 
-------Original Message------- 
 
From: Fred Putnam 
Date: 17/03/2009 1:57:31 AM 
 
 
Dear Rivkah, 
 
Yes, you have understood us correctly: LXX and Vulgate both support the 
"long-O" pronunciation of the first vowel in the name of Ruth's 
Mother-in-law. 
 
Sorry that we [I, at least] were obscure. 
 
Best wishes. 
 
Fred 
 
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Yodan <yodan AT yodanco.com> 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. 
> 
> Do you agree or disagree - and why? And any other responses are welcome. 
> 
> Thanks and best. 
> 
> Rivka Sherman-Gold, Ph.D. 
> 
>