------------------------------One can not find double Iota for -yy- in Seconda, only single ι. The question of the proclitic "w-" in the second column of Hexapla is complicated. There about eight examples of ουα-, four of ουε- and more than fifty of ου- without vowel. Before the verb one can find for the waw conversive ουαθθεμας (the only example with gemination) as well as ουαϊαλεζ, ουεϊεριβου, ουεθαζερηνι, but ουϊεθθεν, ουθεζορήνι, ουθεθθεν, ουιεδαββερ. But for the waw consecutive there is only example with the vowel ουεϊεσεμου (my reading, Mercati read ουεϊεσαμου) and about ten attestations without vowel. So although the statement that there was no differnce between the waw conversive and the waw consecutive, seems to be right, I think that you can see the begining of the process of the differentiation between them even in Secunda transcriptions.
Message: 15
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 16:17:20 +0100
From: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] shwa
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Message-ID: <44183000.7020102 AT online.no>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Dear Peter,
Dear Peter,
I do not know whether your claim that the Greeks did not use doble iota as consonants is true or false. But the lack of such in a few texts is not sufficient to make a rule. However, the Greek letter theta can be doubled. In Psalm 18:40 Origen transcribes the WAYYIQTOL as OUQEZORHNI, in 30:12 as OUEQAZERHNI, AND IN 18:36 as OUQEQQEN. Note particularly the epsilon after OU- in 30:12 and the geminated theta in 18:36. These examples suggests that there was no gemination in WAYYIQTOLs in Origen's Vorlage.
Again, if Origen sought to restore the original vowels and consonants, the lack of difference between WAYYIQTOL and WEYIQTOL in his writing suggests that there was no "original" diffeerence between the two. In any case, a graphic difference between YIQTOLs with prefixed WAW is not found in Origen, in the LXX, or in the Samaritan tradition. The first time we see such a difference is in the Masoretic text.
Best regards,
Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo
Peter Kirk wrote:
On 15/03/2006 12:37, Rolf Furuli wrote:and
Dear Yitzhak,
Origen transcribes WA- and WE- as OU- before nouns particlesYOD isother words as well as before verbs. It does not appear thattheever geminated in the manuscripts that have been found, butYODmaterial is very small. I am not aware of any instance whereareshould have been geminated, but is not.Except of course for OUIEDABBER in Psalm 18:48, which if you
comparing with the Masoretic text certainly "should have been geminated". The absence of any examples of consonantalgeminated iotain the Hexapla, and for that matter in all of the transcribedHebrewetc names in the LXX and the New Testament (even where theunderlyingHebrew has geminated yod as in `ayyah, 1 Chronicles 7:28,where theGreek is GAIA), clearly demonstrates that Greek simply did notusedouble iota as a consonant. This is sufficient in itself toexplainthe lack of gemination in the Greek form OUIEDABBER, even iftheunderlying Hebrew was in fact geminated.
All the best Alexey _______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.