Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Uri:

It is precisely because no reconstruction of iron age or before
pronunciation in any written record that has survived to now is
unquestionable, I wrote the following somewhat tongue in cheek. I am not
trying to make a big thing out of it, just to do a little ribbing. But to
make sure no one takes it the wrong way, I think I’d better cut it out,
making this my last reference in this particular thread.

I didn’t question the long ‘O’ sound.

I may mention more in another thread, but I have no plans to do so at this
time.

Karl W. Randolph.

On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Uri Hurwitz <uhurwitz AT yahoo.com> wrote:

>   Randal is right.
>
>   While no reconstruction of Iron Age pronounciation
>   is unquestionable, in this instance the final
>   long O of the F. plural may indeed be pre-exilic.
>
>   There is evidence of a change from an early long A
>  to a long O in what became biblical Hebrew. An example:
>  "Tsan" (Ts = Tsadi) became "Tson", i.e. flocks of sheep
>  or goats in BH. In both cases the vowel is long.
>
>   Also, Cf. the plural "Barakat", where last vowel is
>   long in Arabic.
>
>    Kol Tuv,
>
>   Uri Hurwitz                  Wilmington, VT
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>   > b(e)rakot [not ever berakawote !]
> > Randall
> >
>
> Because of the dropped unstressed vowels and changes over the centuries, we
> don‘t know what was the pronunciation of ברכות. But we know it was not
> ‘b(e)rakot’.
>
> ברכות
>
> Karl W. Randolph.
>