>
>"In their /the Samaritn/ tradition, as in the second column of Origen“s
>Hexapla, there was no morphological distinction between what we know as waw
>consecutive and waw conjunctive. Neither of them caused gemination of the
>following consonant in the imperfect."
RISA:
Again, has anyone examined the extant fragments of the Hexapla to determine
if the
form of the upsilon is the same in all cases?
Do note that the Greek upsilon originally employed all *FOUR** forms of
Phoenician VAV. to denote phonetic values of vocalic U' and ''W'.as well as
consonantal voiced V and unvoiced 'F. The fourth form, representing the
unvoiced consonantal value F, was later discarded as unnecessary because of
the existence of phi/phe;. Centuries later the Atticists dubbed the
unvoiced consonantal vav 'a digamma.'
BTW, FOUR forms is correct. There are darned good reasons why I dislike
referring to the VAV as WAW... the Phoenician writing system (and its
borrowers) did distinguish among voiced and unvoiced consonantal and
vocalic vavs!
Excuse the pun, but I am beginning to wonder just who or what is imperfect
if the distinctions between voiced and unvoiced and vocalic and
consonantal VAVs written into the documents are ignored. (And they are not
the only multiple forms ignored.)
The greatest irony of all this is that after 70 CE Hebrew writing systems
began to standardize and eventually, over centuries, necessitated full
vocalization notation while the Phoenician/Hebraic/Aramaic tradition was
carried forth in the Christian writing systems.To this day, the Romance
and Germanic languages, for instance, use variant forms, only we dub them
accents such as circumflex,grave, umlaut, etc..
I have been enjoying this entire thread as it wiggled around.
Thanks again,
Rochelle
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.