Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>]

3. Not dialects, but reading traditions.

4. We need to distinguish between the DAG$ANIYM, who, methinks,
came first, the NAQDANIYM who came next,
and the, so called, MASORATES who came later.
Now, "why did they use segol"? They invented the segol
because they (the NAQDANIYM) understood that the dagesh
in the letter C of ECAQ אֶצָּק of Is. 44:3 implies a xirik
(or a patax or a qubuc) under the preceeding letter,
but they had a tradition of starting the word with an E
and not an I.
You may be wrong in thinking that different "points" represent  
different readings.
Spoken Hebrew does not distinguish between a segol and a cere, and  
rightly so.

5. In my opinion the dagesh is an ancient diacritical
marking to hint for a patax, a xiriq, or a qubuc. The
dagesh is absent in plene, or MALE, writing since it is unnecessary
in the presence of a yod or a waw.
I think that dagesh does not "represent" a "missing"
yod --- the dagesh does not "represent" anything.

6. It is not clear to me where you got the idea that the
cere is a "diphthong".
As for the verb Y$B, the future form is [ANIY] E$EB אֵשֵב
'I will sit' with a cere under the aleph; and where is the
dagesh in the letter shin to account for the "missing" yod?

7. In Hos. 2:5 it is ARUMAH עֲרֻמָּה 'naked, written XASER
and with a dagesh in the M. A dagesh in a MALE writing
implies, in my opinion, that a yod or a waw was added (or subtracted)
later in time. In any event, the dagesh is the
defining element of the NIQUD.
BTW, there is no dagesh in the letter N of TBIYEYNAH
(with a yod after the aleph) of Lev. 7:30, but there is a
dagesh in the N of TBIYENAH (sans yod after the aleph)
of Lev. 6:14

8. there is no such thing in Hebrew as a schwa "NA".

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Jun 20, 2011, at 8:03 PM, Nir cohen - Prof. Mat. wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew