Biblical Hebrew Forum

[TedBro AT aol.com]

James:
 
It seems we are talking past each other. Are you suggesting that the text  
as it stands represents the original pronunciation of YHWH? If so,  how can 
we explain the fact that the waw in YHWH is sometimes pointed with  hireq 
and sometimes with qamatz? Both can't be the original, can they? Isn't  this 
very strong evidence that we are dealing with the vowels of elohim (hireq)  
and adonai (qamatz) superimposed on the tetragram?
 
Additionally, I have a hard time understanding how the universal  synagogue 
practice of substitute readings, a tradition that goes back  over a 
thousand years by the only keepers and preservers of the Hebrew  text, can be 
called "no real evidence." 
 
Peace,
Ted Brownstein
=======================
 
 
In a message dated 12/28/2009 3:10:57 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
jc.bhebrew AT googlemail.com writes:

Hi  all,

the classic explanation is as Ted puts forward but there is no  real 
evidence
for it and this argument is quoted parrot fashion seemingly  without end as
if it were established fact.

Also Ted's presentation  of the facts is not entirely complete. The fact is
that vocal shwa was  never used under aleph for pronunciation reasons. The
massoretes used a  different vowel symbol because they were different 
vowels,
neither a pure  shwa and neither a proper 'a' sound but somewhere in 
between.

James  Christian