Biblical Hebrew Forum

[James Christian <jc.bhebrew AT googlemail.com>]

Are you suggesting that matsiti represents an earlier pronunciation than
matsati?

James Christian

On 14 May 2010 20:24, Uri Hurwitz <uhurwitz AT yahoo.com> wrote:

>    Randall,
>
>    It is good to keep in mind that the Mishanh is based on biblical texts.
> These texts are presented in the MT (Immanuel Tov), or what may be more
> precisely called the Consonantal MT.
>
>    The Mishnah was codified by the end of the second century C.E.
>
>    This brings into sharper focus the Matsati - matsiti shift which you
> note.
>
>
>   Ezov Haqqyr,
>
>   Uri Hurwitz                             Great Neck NY
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  Randall Buth wrote:
>
> while discussing preparations for the Hebrew immersion seminar next
> month, an item came up that might interest the list.
>
> matsati 'I found' is BH, MT.
> matsiti 'I found' is Mishnaic, though I don't have data at hand to
> document.
>
> The differentiation of the two morphologies does have something to
> say about the MT tradition of BH. Even though the MT was
> recorded many centuries after mishnaic dialect been in use by the
> communities, it did not 'level' the morphology of BH into MishnH.
> It is also true that Aramaic developed the similar -i- forms as Mishnaic
> Hebrew. One may conclude that the forms like matsati are thus
> non-Aramaic and non-Mishnaic. The probability is that matsati
> represents a pre-Mishnaic, BH.
> of course, the 'dialect' for the seminar will be MT based, so participants
> will be expected to say 'matsati'. (Few/None would have considered matsiti,
> anyway.)
>
> --
> Randall Buth, PhD
> www.biblicalulpan.org
> randallbuth at gmail.com
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> More information about
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>