Biblical Hebrew Forum

[dwashbur AT nyx.net]

On 8 Oct 2009 at 18:25, Gerry Folbre wrote:

> Randall wrote:
>
>
>
> "This appears to unintentionally promote an etymological fallacy
> about
> pi``el.
>
> the distinguishing mark of a "pi``el" verb in a Semitic language is
> not its
> semantic context but its phonetic shape. It is the vowel-consonant
> pattern
> the marks the word, and if the writing system doesn't show that,
> -- well, that's too bad."
>
>
>
> According to Robert K. Logan, "The first proto-alphabetic scripts
> ... had no
> provisions for vowels or vocalization.  Reading a script correctly
> was a
> matter of good guesswork guided by context" (The Alphabet Effect,
> pg. 38)
>
> Paleo Hebrew and New Aramaic Hebrew were both written without vowels
> and
> vocalization points prior to the Masoretic Texts {sixth to the
> ninth
> centuries AD).  When the vowel points and vocalization marks of
> the
> Masoretic Hebrew Tanakh are removed, the reading text, Qare´,
> ceases to
> exist, leaving us only the ancient Kethib {consonantal} text.
> Therefore,
> reading the Hebrew Kethib {consonantal} text correctly would be a
> matter of
> "good guesswork guided by context."
>
> Do you not agree?

Are you familiar with the phrase "first-year lies"?

Dave Washburn

http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur