Biblical Hebrew Forum

["James Spinti" <JSpinti AT Eisenbrauns.com>]

Precisely the reason we go around it ad infinitum. You throw out the MT
data and then don't allow any other comparative data. And, modern Hebrew
is NOT Biblical Hebrew, or would you argue that the "waw" was pronounced
"vav" in BH times? 

Sincerely,
James
________________________________
James Spinti
Marketing Director, Book Sales Division
Eisenbrauns, Good books for more than 35 years
Specializing in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Studies
jspinti at eisenbrauns dot com
Web: http://www.eisenbrauns.com
Phone: 574-269-2011 ext 226
Fax: 574-269-6788 

-----Original Message-----
From: Isaac Fried [mailto:if AT math.bu.edu] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 2:45 PM
To: James Spinti
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] no to aspect

Is "Why would only one of all the Semitic languages fail to have  
gemination?" an argument? Hebrew does not have "gemination", I have  
never heard a Hebrew speaker "geminate" anything. And, indeed, why  
should he. For what purpose should a consonant, written only once, be  
doubled in the mouth, for sheer annoyance? Where do you see that the  
MT "point" to "gemination"? Are we instructed to double a consonant  
as soon as we see a dot placed in it? Is this the purpose of the dot,  
to instruct us to stutter?
The burden of proof is upon you, and I will gladly listen to it, but,  
please, no Arabic and certainly no "Akkadian", "Ugaritic" and the like.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Feb 8, 2011, at 2:20 PM, James Spinti wrote:

> Isaac,
>
> We've been around this ad infinitum. The comparative data, the MT
> itself, all point to gemination. You have failed to provide any  
> evidence
> that is convincing to the contrary. Why would only one of all the
> Semitic languages fail to have gemination?
>
> James
> ________________________________
> James Spinti
> Marketing Director, Book Sales Division
> Eisenbrauns, Good books for more than 35 years
> Specializing in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Studies
> jspinti at eisenbrauns dot com
> Web: http://www.eisenbrauns.com
> Phone: 574-269-2011 ext 226
> Fax: 574-269-6788
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
> [mailto:b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Isaac Fried
> Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 2:16 PM
> To: Rolf Furuli
> Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] no to aspect
>
> The claim of "gemination" is, in my opinion, a mere phantasy.
> Doubling a letter that is written only once amounts, I am afraid, to
> a heedless distortion of the biblical text.
>
> Isaac Fried, Boston University
>
> On Feb 8, 2011, at 2:53 AM, Rolf Furuli wrote:
>
>> You are correct when you say that most Semitists view WAYYIQTOL as
>> perfective. But I would ask two questions on the basis of the
>> masoretic rules of pointing and vocalization: Could the gemination
>> of the YOD in the prefix and the position of the stress corroborate
>> the view that the WAY(Y)-prefix only is a conjunction that have a
>> conjunctive force, and not is a semantic marker making
> WAYYIQTOL
>> different from YIQTOL?
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew