Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Vadim Cherny <him AT vadimcherny.org>]

IMO, all Hebrew vowel mark represent cantillation rather than speech. It 
is unthinkable that Babylonian and Tiberian scholars had different 
religious traditions as to the sacred sounds. Rather, they had slight 
differences in cantillation, just as one can sing an opera slightly 
differently. Indeed, we would expect the most variance in long [a] - 
[aw] transformation.

The difference of kamatz-gadol - katan in Naomo, IMO, is easily 
explainable: ayn was an heavy guttural for Sephardis, thus kamatz gadol.

I also imagine that all Hebrew vowels are traceable to one: 
http://vadimcherny.org/hebrew/protohewbrew_single_vowel.htm

Vadim Cherny

Yodan wrote:
> Question:
>
>  
>
> Does anyone on this list know what was the LXX, Vulgate, or another ancient
> transliteration of the name Nun-Ayin-Mem-Yud (the name of the mother-in-law
> of Ruth)? Or can anyone point me to a source where the answer can be found?
>
>  
>
> The reason for the question:
>
>  
>
> According to the rules set by medieval Sephardi grammarians, the Kamatz of
> Nun is Kamatz Gadol (because the syllable is open), hence Na`omi. However,
> this Kamatz is a Kamatz Katan according to modern-era Biblical Hebrew
> scholars (hence also in modern Hebrew). It is conceivable that the etymology
> of this Kamatz is OH (if the name is "derived" from No`am), supporting the
> transliteration No`omi. However, Tanakh translations show this name as
> Naomi. 
>
>  
>
> Because LXX, Vulgate, and other ancient translations preceded medieval
> Sephardi grammarians, perhaps they provide a clue to how this name was
> pronounced by those who used different vowel-sounds (AH and OH) for the two
> different types of Kamatz.
>
>  
>
> More background related to the question:
>
>  
>
> If the transliteration was based on a Hebrew pronunciation that did not
> differentiate between the two Kamatz vowel sounds (as was the case with the
> Tiberians), the transliterations may not be informative. However, because
> even during the era of the Tiberian Masoretes there were Hebrew
> pronunciations (e.g. Babylonian Jews and others who lived in the Land of
> Israel) who did differentiate between the two sounds (which the Tiberian
> calls by a single name Kamatz), it's possible (likely?) that early Tanakh
> translations (which preceded the Tiberian Masoretes by centuries) were done
> by people who used different vowel sounds for what ended up as the same
> vowel sound in the Tiberian pronunciation. 
>
>  
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
>  
>
> Rivka Sherman-Gold, Ph.D.
>
>  
>
> *********************************
>
> YODAN Publishing
>
> P.O. Box 60655
>
> Palo Alto, CA 94306-0655
>
> 650-494-6994
>
> Rivka AT Yodanco.com 
>
>  
>
> **********************************
>
>  
>
>  
>
>
>