Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Pere:

On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 1:24 AM, Pere Porta <pporta7 AT gmail.com> wrote:

>
>>
> (PP)
>>
> OK. But... the non use of the traditional pointing is a thing and nearly
> despising the vowels is another thing.
> Maybe we could summarize this in the following way:
> -Is the vowel system of the HB perfect?  -Definitely, NO
>

The true answer is that we don̦’t know what was the vowel system of the
Hebrew Bible. All we have are some transliterations of very small portions,
and a tradition from a millennium later that also does not match the
transliterations.


> -Is the vowel system in the HB something banal that can be put aside
> without any consideration?  -Definitely NO.
>

We can neither embrace nor put aside that which we do not know, nor can
know.


> (KR)
>> Until shown otherwise by context or meaning, I see no reason to consider
>> them other than as variants of the same thing.
>> From my answer, you see that I made a distinction between this use and the
>> M- prefix from MN, so that’s not the question.
>>
>> (PP)
>>
>
> Let us take an English example. We have the suffix -S which applies to most
> nouns to have their plural: dog > dogS, house > houseS... and applies also
> to the 3rd person singular Present of most verbs: I think > he thinkS, I eat
> > she eatS...
> Would you say that the -S in the verb form is nothing but a variant of the
> -S of plural of nouns?
> If we compare "he eatS" with "he goES" ... then yes, then we could say that
> -ES is a variant fo the more usual -S, which variant is used for verbs
> ending in some vowels (go, do...) or in some given consonants (cross, mix,
> fly...)
> But... -ES of the verb form is by no means a variant of the usual suffix -S
> of common plurals.  'S' is here a coincidence, not a variant.
>

This is exactly the sort of misconception that I warned against in the
paragraph immediately above yours above.

>  (PP)
>
> But this is not the case for the word Lv 14:4: MI+HR... Would you say that
> in Lv 14:4 M+HR is (or could be) a Pi'el participle as we find it in Mal
> 3:3?
>

Yes.

>
>
>> (KR)
>>
>
>
>> Well, you have my answer that I think you are making a mountain out of a
>> molehill. Beyond my answer, someone else may have a different answer. Let’s
>> see.
>>
> (PP)
> I do not think I'm making a mountain out of a molehill. Of course we may
> wait for other answers, but in the meanwhile... the debate is open.
> As a general line, context helps a lot, true: here you're quite right. But
> context does not solve everything.
>

I have said before, and will repeat it here, that because Biblical Hebrew
preserved only the consonants, that we have more homographs than homonyms:
the difference because of the missing vowels. Using the rules of grammar,
context and syntax, we can almost always, if not always, figure out what was
the original word without referring to a late tradition of vowel indicators.


> If yes, the same for the Hebrew text: MA- is quite different from ME-; ME-
> is quite different from MI-; MI- is quite different from MO- In your
> favor: MO- is but a variant of MU-: for instance, the word MO(MD (1K 22:35)
> is quite the same thing as MU(MD (this not in the Bible)
>

Exactly! But we don’t know what was the Ma-, Me-, Mi-, Mo- or Mu-. Further,
I have found the Masoretic points to be an untrustworthy guide.

>
> Pere Porta
> (Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain)
> -
>
I previously mentioned that I think Biblical Hebrew was a CV
(Consonant/Vowel) language (like Japanese) where every consonant was
followed by a vowel. That would make YHWH a four syllable name. I took that
a step further and said that there were no materes lectionis, that waw and
yod never stood for a vowel in Biblical Hebrew, rather that every time that
we find waw or yod in the text, it is to be pronounced as a consonant. When
I try reading Biblical Hebrew poetry using these rules, I notice that there
is a very definite rhythm, or beat, to the text that does not exist using
other pronunciation rules. Does this prove my supposition? No, but it is
evidence for it.

I acknowledge that my theory may be wrong. But I do not consider evidence
from the Masoretes as valid evidence against my theory. Likewise, unless you
can show from context and meaning that your question has value, I have no
option except to say that you have not demonstrated that your question has
any merit.

Karl W. Randolph.