Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] dagesh in two root nouns with patah

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Will Parsons <wbparsons AT alum.mit.edu>
  • To: kwrandolph AT gmail.com
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] dagesh in two root nouns with patah
  • Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 22:23:19 -0500 (EST)

(Sorry, I seem to have sent off a partially completed draft by mistake -
I'll try to complete my thoughts below...)

On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 14:15:01 -0800, K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com> wrote:
> Will:
>
> On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 5:31 AM, Will Parsons <wbparsons AT alum.mit.edu>wrote:
> >
> > I would tend to agree about Biblical times, but the transliterations in
> > the LXX indicate a softening had taken or was in the process of taking
> > place. That's post-Biblical, of course, but it brings the change down a
> > lot closer than c. 1000 AD.
>
> Yes, that is true. But looking at transliterations from other times and
> places seems to indicate that the softening started in the south (Egypt) and
> gradually moved north, and as late as the New Testament (preserved in the
> Majority text) was still incomplete in Galilee.

I'm not sure what you mean by starting in Egypt - as far as I'm aware
Hebrew wasn't spoken in Egypt? I presume by your reference to the NT and
Galilee, you are referring to the alternation in the NT texts between
Καφαρναουμ/Kapharnaoum and Καπερναουμ/Kapernaoum? If so, yes, the
occurrence of π/p in an intervocalic position does give pause to the idea
that the alternations between forte and lene pronunciations of BGDKPT
as known from the MT was already established by NT times.

> Further, when looking at the pre-Babylonian Exile writing, there was no room
> for dots to indicate any putative doubling, rather doubling had to be
> explicit, and in the examples give by George, all but one have different
> meanings with an explicit doubling.

I'm not sure I'm completely following you here, but if you mean that to
indicate a pronunciation [ʕamm] (or better, [ʕam:]) for עם, one would be
forced to write עמם, I don't think that's true. As Randall Buth indicated,
"doubling" (or "gemination") is a commonly used term for what might better
be termed consonant length. The term "doubling" or "gemination" arises
from the frequent use of doubled letters to indicate length, e.g., Italian
"basso" [bas:o]. This is, however, characteristic I think only of scripts
where vowel letters are first-class citizens (Greek-style alphabets), not
in scripts where vowels are only secondarily indicated, if at all
(Semitic-style alphabets). In these, consonant length (if indicated at all)
is marked by a secondary diacritical mark.

--
Will Parsons



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page