Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] the little things

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: fred burlingame <tensorpath AT gmail.com>
  • To: kwrandolph AT gmail.com
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] the little things
  • Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 22:22:35 -0500

Hello Karl:

I refer to your recent response to Randall's post.

It occurs to me that Kevin perhaps observed above, that the masoretic text
nikkud points, simply represent the manner in which the masoretes chanted
the text in liturgical settings. If this is so, how do we know how
any biblical hebrew is vocalized?

I note that the samaritans contend father to son oral transmission of the
biblical hebrew language has faithfully continued uninterrupted for 3,600
years. And I assume that the rabbinical community and the orthodox jewish
community would similarly contend for accurate transmission of the hebrew
vocalization for the past 3,600 years.

But the fact remains; do we have any facts, versus faith, which prove the
proper vocalization of biblical hebrew?

Gesenius and others have written about vocalization. But does all of this
commentary rest on a wing and a prayer? Or does a factual foundation exist
for vocalization of biblical hebrew language?

regards,

fred burlingame

On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 10:03 PM, fred burlingame <tensorpath AT gmail.com>wrote:

> Hello Randall:
>
> Thanks for your comments.
>
> I guess I am a little confused.
>
> a. I thought that the earliest vocalization code (nikkud) that we have,
> equals the 1,000 a.d., masoretic text ("MT"); and that text encodes
> vocalization for this verse's use of באש as "va-esh," twice.
>
> b. Then, the pronunciation "ba-esh" is encoded the third time because of
> the disjunctive לא ? appearing in the preceding few words?
>
> c. I don't see how we know the earlier (than 1,000 a.d.) pronunciation for
> באש customarily becomes "ba-esh?"
>
> Perhaps i am simply mis-reading your post.
>
> regards,
>
> fred burlingame
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> comments follow this of Kevin:
>>
>> Kevin:
>> The lentition of the letters bgdkpt is usually placed much later. Many
>> think it came in after the Exile. So the answer is no, no C12th BCE
>> Hebrew speaker would have known of this. But after it did become part
>> of Hebrew, yes, ordinary speakers would notice. Anyone who used the
>> wrong variant would have sounded either 'wrong' or 'foreign', just like
>> in languages today that have the same phenomenon.
>>
>> This brings us back to a point often made: the Hebrew we have in the
>> Masoretic texts represents the way Hebrew was chanted in the second half
>> of the 1st millennium CE. As part of the tradition of Hebrew, it is
>> part of the evidence of how Hebrew was spoken in the 1st or 2nd
>> millennium BCE, but it is not, nor was it meant to be, a trascription of
>> how Moses, David or Ezra pronounced Hebrew.
>>
>> Kevin Riley
>>
>> On 5/11/2010 1:27 AM, fred burlingame wrote:
>> > that make life fun ...
>> >
>> > and so, in numbers 31:23 we have three instances of the hebrew word באש
>> > occurring, but we have pronunciation differing; "ya-vo ... va-esh;"
>> > "ta-ah-vi-ru ... va-esh;" and "ya-vo ... ba-esh."
>> >
>> > Is there some rule or reason to "dagesh" for "ba-esh" only once of three
>> > instances?
>> >
>> > Would the average 12th century b.c., shepherd or farmer practiced (or
>> even
>> > known about) such subtle differences in his every day communications?
>> >
>> > Thanks for your help.
>> >
>> > regards,
>> >
>> > fred burlingame
>>
>>
>> Kevin is correct in general about bgdkpt and potentially sounding
>> foreigh or strange in not following the patterns.
>>
>> However, the example of Num 33.23 is special and relates to how
>> fast one is speaking. Normally, following a vowel the bet in 'with fire'
>> would have been pronounced as a fricative, (probably like the bilabial
>> 'b' in Habana [Havana in English] and later as a labiodental 'v)'.
>> However, if a speaker paused for half a moment the
>> bet was considered to be beginning a phrase and would be pronounced
>> as a stop 'b'. In the MT of Num 33, the third example is accented with
>> a 'disjunctive' accent before the bet. Thus, the pause would be heard
>> and reinforced by the stop 'b' continuing a new phrase unit.
>>
>> This illustrates the sub-phonemic status of the b/v alteration in
>> biblical/
>> post-biblical times. If a speaker spoke the verse above quickly enough
>> then all of the bet's would have been fricatives.
>>
>> Randall Buth
>>
>> --
>> Randall Buth, PhD
>> www.biblicalulpan.org
>> randallbuth AT gmail.com
>> Biblical Language Center
>> Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life
>> _______________________________________________
>> b-hebrew mailing list
>> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>>
>
>




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page