b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum
List archive
- From: Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>
- To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Why not patah?
- Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 14:41:21 +0200
That's certainly possible, but reading a qamats in a closed syllable as a
short vowel fits the way all of the other vowels work.
Yigal Levin
From: K Randolph [mailto:kwrandolph AT gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 2:34 PM
To: Yigal Levin
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Why not patah?
Yigal:
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 10:27 PM, Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il> wrote:
Hi Pere,
…
Now, why the Mesoretes used identical signs for a long a and for a short o
is another question.
Do you suppose they used the identical sign because originally they intended
it to refer to the identical pronunciation? But that in the intervening
centuries that either in the closed syllables, and/or the open syllables,
that the pronunciation changed?
Yigal Levin
Karl W. Randolph.
-
Re: [b-hebrew] Why not patah?,
Pere Porta, 01/18/2011
-
Re: [b-hebrew] Why not patah?,
Yigal Levin, 01/18/2011
- Re: [b-hebrew] Why not patah?, Pere Porta, 01/18/2011
-
Message not available
- Re: [b-hebrew] Why not patah?, Yigal Levin, 01/18/2011
- Re: [b-hebrew] Why not patah? Why the ambiguity?, Christopher Kimball, 01/18/2011
-
Re: [b-hebrew] Why not patah?,
Yigal Levin, 01/18/2011
- Re: [b-hebrew] Why not patah?, Isaac Fried, 01/18/2011
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
-
[b-hebrew] Why not patah?,
Uri Hurwitz, 01/18/2011
- Re: [b-hebrew] Why not patah?, Isaac Fried, 01/18/2011
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.