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: K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
  • To: Will Parsons <wbparsons AT alum.mit.edu>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] dagesh in two root nouns with patah
  • Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 15:47:10 -0800

Will:

On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 7:23 PM, Will Parsons <wbparsons AT alum.mit.edu>wrote:

>
> 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?
>

As far as I know, Hebrew wasn’t spoken anywhere at that time except as a
second language. In the same manner as Latin continued to be a spoken
language long after no one learned it at his mother’s knee, continued to be
developed and continued to change its pronunciation.


> 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?
>

As far as I know, no version I have seen says Καφαρναουμ, all
say Καπερναουμ. But there are other names such as Ματθαιον vs. Μαθθαιον,
Ναζαρετ vs. Ναζαρεθ and some others.


> 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.
>

But not exactly in the same way as later evidenced in the MT, as
the Καπερναουμ example shows.

>
> > 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.
>

This is what I was saying is not found in pre-Babylonian Exile script, and
not added to the Aramaic square script until the MT. Therefore there was no
indication that such a gemination existed before the Masoretes.

>
> --
> Will Parsons
>

Karl W. Randolph.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page