Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Nir cohen - Prof. Mat." <nir AT ccet.ufrn.br>]

isaac, 

there are so many arguments against this new conjecture of yours,
that i dont know where to start.

1. for fixing an odd rare word in the text you non-challantly 
introduce a major havock in pronounciation.

2. conjectures abound, but proofs are scanty. 

3. it is much simpler to assume that differences between tiberian and
babylonian niquds reflect a difference between two slightly different
dialects, after one millenium of independent coexistence.

4. if the masorah wanted a cere or xiriq in ECOQ/ECAQ, why did they
use segol?

5. your argument implicitly assumes changing segol to xiriq (i take it, XASER)
would solve the dagesh forte. based on what? 

maybe a xiriq MALE (or cere) would solve the problem, since the dagesh there
represents (as far as my conjectures go...) the missing YOD. indeed, in YB$
--> )YB$ a xiriq male replaces the dagesh. 

6. one may in fact conjecture, exactly the opposite of your 
conjecture, that cere evolved from a segol + yod. example: YRD --> 
)ERED, or Y$B --> )E$EB. the initial cere represents E-segol 
prefix (as in all future 1st qal declensions) plus YOD. clearly 
the E-prefix could not be xiriq, otherwise what would be the 3rd person 
prefix?

in other words, normally a diphthong (cere) evolves from two simple 
vowels.

7. i add an interesting discussion on niqud 

http://curiousjew.blogspot.com/2009/08/biblical-hebrew-class-1.html

where the following example is discussed:

arumim (naked) is always with dagesh forte,
arumim (devious etc) is always w/o dagesh forte.

and both words have equal niqud otherwise. of course, the SINGULAR is
most probably different: (EROM vs (ARUM, and in my opinion 
may be seen as the source of the difference. but, what is YOUR 
explanation?

8. your example EShKAREKh is about dagesh qal in beged-kefet 
after shwa na. i think that normally masorah puts the dagesh there
after both xiriq and segol, so your modification would be irrelevant
here. examples:

ishbor: xiriq followed by dagesh qal
eshbor: segol followed by dagesh qal.

(inbal: xiriq followed by dagesh qal
eshkol: segol followed by dagesh qal.

best
nir cohen

>>>>>>>>>> De: Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>
Cópia: Biblical Hebrew list <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Para: Biblical Hebrew list <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Data: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 17:13:45 -0400
Assunto: [b-hebrew] segol
In connection with the ET question, I will reiterate my conjecture  
that the three-point segol niqud (which is a Tiberian invention,  
absent in the Babylonian punctuation system) is but a notational  
compromise between the two-point cere (schwa?) and the one-point xiriq.
This explains the presence of the dagesh in such words as E$KAR  
אֶשְׁכָּרֵךְ of Ez. 27:15, punctuated with a segol under  
the aleph in our books, but with a xiriq in the Babylonian system.
Also, of ECAQ and ECOK of Is. 44:3, where the segol seems to mean  
that the suggested reading is E, but that the "original" reading was  
I, with a xirik, and hence the dagesh in the letter C.

Isaac Fried, Boston University