Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Garth Grenache <garthgrenache AT hotmail.com>]

Robert Shannon Sumner wrote> Please keep in mind that language is primarily a 
spoken medium, and dialects differ from riverbank to riverbank.  Grammar 
comes along much later, and standardized grammar later still.       To 
attempt to use the late Massoretic ideas of how Hebrew should be written to 
determine how a much earlier Hebrew would have been spoken is in and of 
itself a faulty methodology.  

I heed your warning to be cautious about presuming that Masoretic Hebrew 
accurately reflects much earlier Hebrew, and encourage all to heed it.

The flip side of this coin is that another could have a faulty methodology if 
they assumed that the changes between earlier Hebrew and Masoretic Hebrew 
were not regular, and dismissed the Masoretic pointing as unhelpful, rather 
than opting for an interpretation of that pointing which shows regular 
correspondence with what is known/suggested about ancient Hebrew from other 
sources.

For example, we can consider these regular correspondences between Masoretic 
forms CōCeC and Semitic forms CuCCu:

'uẟnu ("ear") -noun
-> uznu (Akkadian)
-> 'udn (Ugaritic)
-> 'udun (Arabic)
-> 'ōzen (Hebrew)

shurshu ("root") -noun 
-> shurshu (Akkadian)
-> shōresh (Hebrew)

qudshu ("holiness") -noun

-> qudshâ (Aramaic)

-> qōdesh (Hebrew)


There is clear suggestion here that a Proto-Semitic shape such as CuCCu 
regularly becomes CōCeC in Masoretic Hebrew.  Therefore though Masoretic 
pointing is doesn't point the earlier vowels, what it does point often has 
regular correspondence to the earlier vowels.

If regular correspondence can be demonstrated in any aspect of the Masoretic 
vowels, I suggest this aspect can be used as evidence.

Garth Grenache.
                                          
_________________________________________________________________
Browse profiles for FREE! Meet local singles online.
http://clk.atdmt.com/NMN/go/150855801/direct/01/