Hello Karl: Perhaps your nice analysis implies:
a. that just as the language, vocabulary, text etc., of "essentials of general surgery" intended for consumption by 1/1,000th of one percent of the u.s. population today; http://www.amazon.com/Essentials-General-Surgery-Richard-Bell/dp/0781750032/ref=dp_ob_title_bk b. so, the language, vocabulary, text, etc., of the "masoretic text" intended for 1/1,000th of one percent of the population of judah, yesterday. (am i allowed to say that?) ... :) regards, fred burlingame .... On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 9:00 PM, K Randolph <[email protected]> wrote: > Fred: > > On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 8:22 PM, fred burlingame <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Hello Karl: >> >> It occurs to me that Kevin perhaps observed above, that the masoretic text >> nikkud points, simply represent the manner in which the masoretes chanted >> the text in liturgical settings. If this is so, how do we know how >> any biblical hebrew is vocalized? >> >> > We don’t know, and that is one of the continuing disagreements between me > and Randall. When even the meanings as indicated by some of the points are > wrong, even according to their own system, then how can that be an accurate > transcription of Biblical pronunciation? > > Pere Porta has indicated that he has found 8000 different grammatical > patterns in Masoretic Hebrew. I have heard from several sources that the > average working man has a working vocabulary of 2500–3000 unique terms. No > way is the language that complex! If Pere is correct, and I don’t doubt him, > then that indicates to me that the Masoretes didn’t have a unified > grammatical system, rather they pointed more or less ad hoc to fit their > chanting tradition. > >> >> regards, >> >> fred burlingame >> >> Karl W. Randolph. > > _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
