Isaac, thanks very much for your answer. This is indeed what I thought, both editions I have mention hatuf patah but a third one that I have (Vigouroux)mentions shewa which reflects your version as well.
If you say "anything can be explained one way or another.", what rationale would you give to hatuf patah, then ? to me this is definitely an error and no support can be given for a lamed with hatuf patah. Would you be able to explain such a deviant though?
laurent
De : Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>
À : Laurent Pinchard <ougaritique AT yahoo.fr>
Cc : b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Envoyé le : Lundi, 2 Mars 2009, 13h24mn 57s
Objet : Re: hatuf patah under the lamed (LHBDYL) in Gen 1,18 and Lev 10,10
Laurent,
It is possibly a mistake or a deviant. My Hebrew bible from school has a schwa under the L in both Genesis and Leviticus, and it is so also in the on-line bible of mechon-mamre at http://www.mechon- mamre.org/i/t/t0.htm
Of course anything can be explained one way or another.
Isaac Fried, Boston University
On Mar 2, 2009, at 6:19 AM, Laurent Pinchard wrote:
dear Isaac,
would you know why in Gen 1,18 we have a hatuf patah under the lamed (LHBDYL), which I don't understand: this semi vowel never appears under lamed as a preposition. Note that I have this from the BHS edition. Interestingly Leviticus 10,10 also mentions the same lamed with hatuf patah on the same word. Elsewhere any word starting with W(shuruk)LH-- would have as anticipated a patah or a shewa. Is this hatuf patah under the lamed a mistake? if not what is the rationale ?
laurent
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.