Yes - except that there isn't a dagesh in the first lamed. If there was, there would be no problem, except that Trevor would have to transliterate with three l's, hallluw yah. But a lot of people seem to read the word as if there was a dagesh there.And so for the Masoretic
pronunciation
perhaps we have some kind of perpetual Qere, with the
pronunciation as
if there is one lengthened lamed; so we would have unchanged
Ketiv HLLW
YH but Qere HAL.W. YAH.
I thought that HLL was a piel form, so both lameds were to be pronounced. Am
I just off? Thus, the dagesh in the first lamed represents the dagesh of the
piel binyan, ...
... and the second lamed is the third radical. Have I ever seenNo, the idea of it being a qere was my own speculation, probably unfounded.
HLWYH instead of HLLWYH? I don't think so. I don't recall seeing it in any
of the Massoretic notations, and I never had read about it being a perpetual
q'rei until this message. Can I get a reference?
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.