Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Garth Grenache <garthgrenache AT hotmail.com>]

Hi Will, Yitzhak, all,

Yitzhak asked:
> As for the diphthong -- yes, a reading
> with a simple long [e:]/[?:]/[?:] would
> be consistent with the evidence. 
> However, I think the use of a yodh
> is telling.  In other examples where
> a long [i:] develops to a long [e:]
> such as in the case of a participle
> [qo:te:l] (from [qa:ti:l]) we don't
> see a yodh. Perhaps though there are
> similarly rare instances that have a
> yodh in such participles.  Can anyone
> here check that up?

I don't think the active participle was qa:ti:l, but simply qa:tilu > qo:te:l.
I've not seen anyone suggest qa:ti:l until now.
What is the evidence/reasoning behind this form?

But as we seem to agree that the y was added into Yerushalem late 1st mill 
BCE...
I think I read somewhere that the longer spelling is found on some coin or 
official document of the time.
Perhaps as it was such a common word, and represents an authority centre,
the fuller spelling (marking its long closed final vowel) became easily 
officialized and spread by such use.

Around that time the final tsere in popular 'el names, such as Michael and 
Gabriel became written with 'YL.

It may just be that Jerusalem's new spelling made it into the MT through it 
being a popular name so that it's improved spelling became well known, 
widespread and standard.

Garth.

                                          
_________________________________________________________________
If It Exists, You'll Find it on SEEK. Australia's #1 job site
http://clk.atdmt.com/NMN/go/157639755/direct/01/