|
In your previous post you wrote: "What they attempted was to produce a phonetically accurate representation of what happens at the phonological level" To this I say: it is a mere guess. Further down you say: "The third syllable carries the stress, and is thus long– נֵי" which to my understanding equates stress to length. Then you state that: "So using the MT system COMBINATION looks like this: כָּמבֱּנֵישְׁן" To which I say: not to me. Where did you get the qamatc for CO? –––––––––––– It is not clear to me what is "the abstract layer of language" You say: "most shewas would not be included in the alphabet" which is true, but the NAQDANIYM wanted possibly to occupy the space in order to prevent a later insertions. In fact, by doing that, they forced later generations to invent the convenient subterfuge of the schwa "mobile". I think that the patax-xatap is but the compromise patax-schwa. XATUP, in my opinion, is a misnomer. I am sorry, but your statement to the effect that "The Masoretes came up with a system that would preserve what they heard as native speakers", is in my opinion a grand fallacy ––– the "Masoretes" did not punctuate the Hebrew bible according to what they "heard", but according to what they knew. Isaac Fried, Boston University On Jan 8, 2013, at 9:04 PM, Jonathan Mohler wrote: Isaac: |
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.