On Thursday, July 31, 2003 12:53 AM, Jony Rosenne wrote: > I have not seen an answer to my question: Is the distinction from the > Masora or later.
I don't know if there is a definite statement from the Masorites specifically about the issue, but this page from the Leningrad codex is all the statement I need: http://www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/wsrp/educational_site/biblical_manuscripts/LeningradCodex2_e.jpg The last (leftmost) word on line 7 is shamoa' and contains a holam male showing the dot centered above the stem of the vav (or, if you like, to the left of the mem). The last word on the next line is lemitzvotav and contains a vav with a holam haser showing the dot well to the left of the vav. Based on this, I would say that the answer to Jony's question is that the distinction is from the Masora. On a related topic: observe that the penultimate word on line 5, vayilonu, has a holam haser dot well over the nun. However, no one would associate the dot with the nun. Similarly, the holam haser is well over the alef in vayavo-u on line 4, even though the alef has its own vowel. There is nothing in any Hebrew grammar about a "right dot" for anything other than a shin dot. If we're going to be discussing new characters, can we try to stick to established terminology, namely holam male instead of "right dot", "vav-holam" (or is it "holam-vav"?), etc., both in the discussion and (unless there is a compelling reason) in our proposed character names? Solving this problem with a "right dot" combining character may seem elegant to some, but it has nothing to do with Hebrew as grammarians have understood it for the last millenium. Ted Ted Hopp, Ph.D. ZigZag, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1-301-990-7453 newSLATE is your personal learning workspace ...on the web at http://www.newSLATE.com/
