...
Nevertheless, a change from mostly a use of -h at the end of the word
to reflect masculine possessive to a -w at the end does reflect a
sound change, whether it happened earlier or concurrently. ...
... And a
change from -m to -ym possibly reflects a lengthening of the final
vowel in the masculine.
All this is evidence that there may very well have been sound changes
-- both in vowels and consonants -- that were reflected in the
"modernized" spelling of the Torah. The spelling of the Torah may
reflect a modernized spelling or it may reflect the spelling convention
of a secretive scribal school in official Jerusalem circles that did not
deal with inscriptions and is therefore uknown from the inscriptional
evidence.
The question whether or not "Biblical Hebrew" (ie, consonantal spelling)
was spoken in pre-exilic times is a controversial and clearly not
something everyone agrees about. The possibility of "Biblical Hebrew"
representing a stage in post-exilic times is still very probably (given
that the other scenario -- secret otherwise unknown official scribal
school -- is unlikely).
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.