On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 19:23:29 +0300, Randall Buth <[email protected]> wrote: > >> ... > >> Of course, as Fred points out, the label could just as easily have been > >> applied to the vowel, "segol" as a "virtual long vowel". Either way, it is > >> more evidence of the care with which the MT developed. > >... > Will katav > > So if we start > > for an underlying form that has a short (not daghesh) heth, we would > > expect the seghol to either be further reduced to a variety of shwa, or > > possibly be lengthened to sere. > > As you wish. But as you mentioned, the "lengthening" to sere is an option, > like berax 'he blessed'. Well, since a lengthened sere didn't happen and > dagesh is not marked, we have an anomaly that was not marked nor > resolved. "Virtual" is for us.
Yes, but the question is whether one should regard the consonant as being "virtually" long or the vowel as "virtually" long. I go with the consonant. > Comparison with yaHad and 'one' in Arabic > might put our expecation on a 'virtual vowel' rather than a virtual long > consonant. True, the comparisons with the Hebrew yaHad and the Arabic forms do not give any support for אֶחָד being derived from an earlier form that had a long middle consonant. But that's a diachronic and comparitive argument. Regardless of how it came about, synchronically, the pointing of אחד implies an underlying form with a long middle consonant. > And isn't the whole thing just a little humorous? You find this humorous? I disagree, sir, with every fibre of my being!!! (Well, perhaps a little...) > >> They did not > >> impose a grammar, but truly recorded the tradition as best they could. > >> It also means that the language was passed on as a language and not > >> as a grammar system, that came later. One of the delightful things > >> about the MT is that the differences between BAramaic and BHebrew > >> morphologies can be studied. Their independent development is > >> recorded and makes linguistic sense as the trees are traced in reverse. > > > > Morphologically, perhaps, but phonologically perhaps not so much. I can't > > help but think that the vowel distinctions made in the vowel symbols > > represent a primarily Aramaic system. Not that the MS vowel pointing > > misrepresent the Hebrew pronunciation the Massoretes were trying to > > capture, but that they were hearing that pronunciation through Aramaic ears. > > The point here is that the Hebrew and Aramaic vowels within cognate > words were different. e.g., guvrin vs. gvarim. And the different > developments can be traced and compared and 'explained'. Like > Aramaic Had 'one' vs. BH eHad 'one'. No quarrel here. -- Will Parsons _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
