I accept "less aspirated", and perhaps "reduced aspiration". Very likely the first stage of change was a distinction in aspiration - which is actually found in English, in which plosive following "s" are not aspirated. I don't think we can tell in which direction the change happened. (But the structure of the Greek alphabet suggests that Phoenician pe, taw and kaf were not aspirated, as they became the Greek unaspirated pi, tau and kappa, and new letters were added (and tet redefined) for the aspirated versions.) At a later stage, the more aspirated plosives became fricativised. It is not clear to me whether this process took place before or after the Masoretes - but it does seem to have preceded the split between Ashkenazim and Sephardim....What I say, basically, is that the Masoretes recorded some instances of
begedkefet (with dagesh kal) more plosified than others (without dagesh).
OK if you replace "more plosified" by "not fricativised".
That I cannot do. The Masoretes introduced dagesh kal--a stop, in my
opinion--for distinct singing in positions where there is no stop in speech,
as we can see from Arabic. That stop necessarily reduced aspiration of
subsequent consonant (the one with dagesh kal). Therefore, the Masoretes
made some instances of begedkefet "less aspirated" than other instances.
This led to "begedkefet spread," non-dageshed begedkefet's fricativised to
clearly distinguish them from the dageshed counterparts.
I can summarize as follows: introduction of the dagesh kal reduced
aspiration in some instances (made the relevant sounds "more plosified"),
and in response to this process, the other instances became fricativised.
In fact the raw data says nothing about the direction of change.
There are some indications.
We know that the Greeks didn't generally use tau for tav, so presumably tav
was aspirated, with strictly plosive variety appearing in response to dagesh
kal. ...
... Phei appears in Vulgate as ph, so it also was aspirated, and pei appeared
because of dagesh kal. Similarly with chaf.
Bet, however, often appears in Vulgate as "b." Synodal Bible, however,
universally employs "v," with major exceptions of Abram and Helbon. ...
...
Another evidence against dagesh as gemination is mappiq, which is evidently
the same sign as dagesh. We know that hey do not geminate.
Mappiq--dagesh--in hey could only mean stop. ...
Similarly with dagesh in waw.
But the main argument against dagesh as gemination, in my opinion, is
metaphysical. The Masoretes were painfully honest. They marked many words
which they did not understand, but didn't attempt to change these words.
They were likely versed in gematry. They would not dream of changing the
sacred letters, like doubling them--affecting the roots, the meaning
(gemination in two-letter roots), and possibly the gematrical values.
"v" for beta is not an instance, as proved above. If you want to continue your assertion, I suggest you go away and check Steinberg, because until I see some examples I am not going to believe that there are any.... Can you give me any examples of names in the SlavonicThis is, indeed, a major difference. Using "v" where the LXX has beta is
or Russian Bible which are based directly on Hebrew not via LXX? ...
another instance. I recall reading several examples in Steinberg, but just
don't remember them off-hand.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.