Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>]

I will reiterate my opinion that:
1. There is no schwa "NA" and no schwa "NACH". The NAKDANIM (which  
were possibly QARAIM, but are elevated now, to coverup their doubtful  
origin,  to the status of "Masorates") possibly followed a minimalist  
pronunciation tradition, and in order to avoid the creeping back of  
spurned vowels filled the vacant location under the letter by a  
schwa. Now some people cunningly bring back some of these vowels by  
the tricky subterfuge of the invented "semi-vowels" of the schwa "NA".
2. In reading the TNK I strive not "move" any schwa except in the B Q  
L prepositions. Hebrew sounds to me very good and very right this way.
3. It is customary in spoken Hebrew to "move" the schwa under the B Q  
L prepositions and make them sound BE, QE, LE, as though they were  
separate words. To this I agree.
4. A schwa "NACH" is merely a schwa under a letter that should have  
carried a dagesh XAZAQ. In case of BGDQPT it is moved forward to  
become a dagesh QAL.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
 
 
> From vadimcherny AT gmail.com  Mon Apr 26 06:34:51 2010
Return-Path: <vadimcherny AT gmail.com>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix, from userid 3002)
        id 912494C017; Mon, 26 Apr 2010 06:34:51 -0400 (EDT)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on malecky
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,
        DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL
        autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1
Received: from mail-bw0-f210.google.com (mail-bw0-f210.google.com
        [209.85.218.210])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A49C64C016
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Mon, 26 Apr 2010 06:34:50 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: by bwz2 with SMTP id 2so10979731bwz.30
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Mon, 26 Apr 2010 03:34:49 -0700 
(PDT)
Received: by 10.204.144.86 with SMTP id y22mr2382451bku.39.1272278089419;
        Mon, 26 Apr 2010 03:34:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.2] (PPPoE-137-173.EuroCom.Od.UA [212.15.137.173])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 16sm1435038bwz.5.2010.04.26.03.34.47
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5);
        Mon, 26 Apr 2010 03:34:48 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <79EE8BC2-0A65-47CF-AEF1-D3B87810C227 AT gmail.com>
From: Vadim Cherny <vadimcherny AT gmail.com>
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936)
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 13:34:46 +0300
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936)
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Inseparable Prepositions and that shewa
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Biblical Hebrew Forum <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 10:34:51 -0000

Yitzhak Sapir wrote:

>Ben Asher and Saadia did not live "three or four centuries after the  
Masoretes
>introduced their notation."  The Masoretes were not a single group  
of people
>who in one day introduced a whole new notation and then left the  
scene.

Had not dagesh marks appeared centuries before Saadia, who would thus  
be expected to explain rather than challenge them?


> The Masoretic tradition has dagesh kal even in Aramaic texts - do you
> seriously believe that every other Aramaic author was wrong in
> omitting them (as far as I know)?

>Well, that depends.  Which Aramaic author or authors did you have
>in mind that omitted them in vocalized texts?

No doubt, your linguistic knowledge vastly exceeds mine. Still, I  
won't recall a single Aramaic text which supports dagesh kal in, say,  
word-initial position.

>Vocalized Aramaic texts in the Hebrew tradition (such as Onqelos) also
>have dagesh qal.  Even Syriac has qu$$aya and rukkakha to mark the
>differences.

Or, perhaps, Onkelos was dageshed well later? We don't have its early  
manuscripts. I have no information about Syriac.

>Or did you simply make a claim about
>"every other Aramaic author" just like you make up vocalizations of
>non-existent words in the Bible?

Why not stop beating a dead horse? I used binchem example the way  
qtalchem is used.

>The DSS does not have "dvarac."  The DSS has final -kh and -th leading
>scholars to believe the pronunciation was -ka.

But DSS also have final hey in otem -@tmh, so final hey in 2ms is  
likely a similar epenthetic sound.
It is still more clear in Secunda: tovac for tovcha.
If you would argue that Greek X was ch, then you would have to explain  
LXX's Xalannia for Calneh.

>Similarly, neither the Secunda nor the LXX (to which the Masoretes did
>have access), allow us to distinguish fricative from plosive  
pronunciations
>since the Greek writing system did not distinguish fricative and  
aspirated
>letters.

Why not? tav is theta rather than tau, caf is chi rather than kappa in  
Secunda.

>The pronunciations in the Secunda feature the drop of the last vowel  
in
>the suffixed pronouns. They show a development similar to Aramaic  
where
>the last vowel that was lost displaced the original case vowel -  
malkuka
>"your king (nominative)" -> malkak.

Might it be very different? It is one thing to drop a final vowel  
after an open syllable (malkuka), and quite another - after a closed  
syllable (dvarcha). There must be a reason for vulgar epenthesis in  
dvar(e)cha but not in catavta, and the only such reason is semantic:  
verbs and nouns received different intonational accent.

>No, we can't.  The dagesh is not "an attempt at resyllabification."   
The
>dagesh is present in -tem because historically there was never any
>vowel separating -tem and the root.  It is not present in -khem
>because nouns had a case vowel and verbs had a vowel following most
>nominative suffixes (-ti: in katavti:, -ta in katavta, etc.)

You really believe that the Masoretes wrote a diachronic grammar,  
reflecting the case vowel lost perhaps a thousand years before them?

Vadim Cherny