I am not sure why there is a double n in Phennana, the same way I am not sure why there is a double m and a double t and a double e in the English word committee, yet only one m in coming.
It is hard to believe, yet the LXX may have confused the look-alike Hebrew letters H and X, as well as R and D (is there any work on the rendering of the Hebrew names by the LXX?). For PIYNXAS of Num. 25:7 they have the curious Φινεες, yet Gen. 11 they "correctly" render NAXOR as Ναχωρ, but ,then, TERAX is suddenly made into Θαρα. Did they see the last X of TERAX as a silent H? The name IRAD עירד of Gen. 4:18 is made into Γαιδαδ. To return to Phennana, the MT has it as PNINAH with a dagesh in the second N as is customary after a xirik sans yod. I notice with interest that they read the first letter of this name as a "soft" F and not as the "hard" P of today. The second N of PNINAH has a dagesh 'forte' and yet this N is not "geminated". On the other hand they render the city name AKO (with a dagesh in the K as customary after a patax) of Jud. 1:31 as Ακχω. It is all, unfortunately, very bewildering. I tend to think that the LXX are mostly wrong, and the MT right; Αρμαϑαιμ and Σιϕα just don't sound right to me (as well as the funny Phennana). Yes, indeed, the Editors of the Oxford Hebrew-English dictionary have removed all dgeshim, except in B K P, and also all the unnecessary schwas. I love it. Isaac Fried, Boston University On Apr 28, 2011, at 5:22 PM, Will Parsons wrote: > I don't have a copy of the Oxford English-Hebrew dictionary; does > it really > remove all dgeshim or just those where it doesn't make a difference > to the > modern pronunciation? _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
