George Athas wrote: “Can I suggest, Jim, that you get yourself a copy of: Joseph Malone, Tiberian Hebrew Phonology (Eisenbrauns 1993). In fact, anyone interested in Hebrew phonology will find this work quite useful. You can get yourself a copy direct from Eisenbrauns online.” 1. George, what pages in that book discuss the interior vav in proper names in old parts of the Bible? In looking through that book’s Table of Contents on-line, I do not see that subject being covered. Does that book set forth a specific view as to why there is an interior vav in XBRWN in the Patriarchal narratives? If so, at what page? 2. A book on Tiberian Hebrew phonology would presumably focus on how the Masoretes in the Middle Ages interpreted the sounds of Biblical Hebrew. Why would one expect such a book to tell us whether or not the interior vav in XBRWN is a Hurrian genitive case marker? 3. I found a standard reference to Malone’s classic work here: “Opacity in Tiberian Hebrew: Morphology, Not Phonology*”, by Antony D. Green http://www.zas.gwz-berlin.de/fileadmin/material/ZASPiL_Volltexte/zp37/zaspil37-green.pdf It states at p. 41: “Tiberian Hebrew (Brown et al. 1906, Gesenius 1910, Hetzron 1987, Malone 1993, Khan 1997, Steiner 1997, Churchyard 1999) is the language in which almost the entire Old Testament is written. The term “Tiberian” refers not the region in which the language was spoken, but the region where the scholars (called Masoretes) lived who devised the pointing system that eventually became standard. It is important to be aware that all information about vowels, stress, and spirantization is indicated by this Tiberian pointing system and that Hebrew had died out as a language of everyday communication several centuries before the pointing system was invented. Thus virtually everything that modern linguists assume about the structure of TH depends on information provided by people who were native speakers of Aramaic, not Hebrew.” Why would native speakers of Aramaic in the Middle Ages be expected to know whether or not the interior vav in XBRWN is a Hurrian genitive case marker? In particular, I myself do not see that interior vav as being, in any way, shape or form, a vowel. A book on Tiberian Hebrew phonology would presumably tell us how an interior vav was pronounced in the Bible, focusing on (and critiquing) the views of the Masoretes in the Middle Ages as to that subject. Why is that relevant to this thread? This thread is asking why there is an interior vav in XBRWN in Genesis, and is not concerned with how the Masoretes in the Middle Ages thought such interior vav should be pronounced. 4. Genesis 11: 31-32 sets forth the city name Harran as XRN, with no interior vav or interior yod, and being the classic defective spelling of early Biblical Hebrew. Why isn’t the place where the Patriarchs most often sojourn similarly rendered, in early Biblical Hebrew defective spelling, as XBRN? We know the spelling XBRN from all those LMLK seals that date to about 700 BCE. Genesis 12: 5 has KN(N, with no interior vav or interior yod. )YL P)RN at Genesis 14: 6 has no interior vav or interior yod. It’s obvious that a final -N in a geographical place name in the Patriarchal narratives often does not attract a preceding interior vav or yod. Why does XBRWN have an interior vav before the final -N, whereas XRN, KN(N, and )YL P)RN do not? Does Malone have a specific theory as to why that is the case? (If so, I would be very, very interested in that.) What I think Malone’s book does is to tell us when we should expect what kinds of vowel sounds (in the medieval Masoretic view of Biblical Hebrew). Thus Malone’s book is sure to contain very extended discussions of topics like the following: “Malone (1993: 93–94) proposes the rule of segolate epenthesis shown in (10), which inserts the vowel [ɛ] into a word-final consonant cluster. (10) Segolate epenthesis (Malone 1993: 93–94) ∅ → ɛ / C __ C # [ɛ] is inserted into a word-final consonant cluster” . Green at p. 43. I just don’t see how the Masoretic theory of implying and pronouncing Hebrew vowels has much relevance, one way or the other, to this thread. The question in this thread is why there is an interior vav in XBRWN in Genesis, not how such interior vav should be pronounced. 5. Does Malone’s book, or any other scholarly publication, set forth a specific theory as to why there is an interior vav in XBRWN in Genesis in particular? My understanding is that no such specific scholarly theory exists. Rather, there is only the ultra-generic consideration that many interior vavs were added into the Bible in the 1st millennium BCE, especially in post-exilic times, and that although one might not have expected XBRN in Genesis to have been updated to XBRWN as plene spelling (since it is a proper name, not a common word, and it appears in a very old part of the Bible), that plene spelling update in fact happened (according to the scholarly view, with which I respectfully disagree), so that the original XBRN was updated to XBRWN, for reasons unknown. George, is there a scholarly theory out there that is more specific and sophisticated than that as to the interior vav in XBRWN in Genesis? If Malone’s book sets forth such a theory (as opposed to merely telling us the medieval Masoretic theory for how to pronounce that interior vav in the received text), then I will definitely buy the book. But you would need to tell me what page numbers in the book contain such a theory, and then by looking at the Table of Contents I should be able to tell in what context Malone is commenting about this phenomenon. Jim Stinehart Evanston, Illinois
_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
