Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Isaac:

On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 6:09 AM, Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu> wrote:

> The lack of vowel after the S of ASNAT is in line with the NAQDANIYM's
> habit of economizing on the number of vowels in a Hebrew word, giving
> thereby the language a crisp pleasant (at least to my ears listening to my
> lips) sound: NAP$-KA, B-$IBT-KA, U-B-LEKT-KA, U-B-$AKB-KA, TI-ZKR-U
>
> נַפְשְׁךָ, בְּשִׁבְתְּךָ, וּבְלֶכְתְּךָ, וּבְשָׁכְבְּךָ, תִּזְכְּרוּ
>
>  etc.
>

As far as I can tell, they did not invent their pronunciation nor economize
on the number of vowels, rather they merely recorded a tradition that had
been building up for a while and had been handed to them.

>
> If I understand it correctly, you are saying that the double n in the
> Greek rendering of the name is merely to indicate that the stress is on NE
> – to read the name as aseNEt.
>

Go back to my original answer, it merely says that the preceding vowel is
present but unstressed.

>
> Isaac Fried, Boston University
>

Karl W. Randolph.

>
> On Jan 26, 2012, at 8:01 PM, K Randolph wrote:
>
> Isaac:
>
> Look at the Masoretic points, and you can see that the second vowel had
> completely dropped out by the time of the Masoretes. What the doubled
> consonant following that second vowel in the LXX indicates is that the
> preceding vowel is unstressed at the time of the LXX pronunciation, but
> still present.
>
> But even the LXX pronunciation is not the same as Biblical pronunciation.
> The latter has been lost, and I see no way it can be recovered. But we can
> still read the text.
>
> Karl W. Randolph.
>
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu> wrote:
>
>> In Gen. 41:45 I see the name אסנת transliterated by the LXX as
>> Ασεννεϑ (why the double n?)
>>
>> In Gen. 26:34 I see the name בשמת transliterated by the LXX as
>> Βασεμμαϑ (why the double m?)
>>
>> Isaac Fried, Boston University
>
>
>