Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Will Parsons <wbparsons AT alum.mit.edu>]

On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 07:46:39 -0800, K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
> 
Right - they recorded as best they could the tradition that had been passed
down 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.
...
>> 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.

I'm not sure I can agree that the double consonant indicates that the
preceding vowel is unstressed, but it certainly indicates that the LXX
translators heard a vowel following the samekh in אסנת.

>> 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.

I agree that the LXX transcription may represent a pronunciation different
from that of the time of the composition of the book, and the MH transcription
differs from both.

>> 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?)

It's quite possible they heard a long ("geminated") consonant in the names.

-- 
Will Parsons