I am convinced that the LXX occasionally confused the look-alike Hebrew R and D letters, that they did not read correctly certain letters, or combination of letters, that they often misunderstood the meaning of the text, and that they used a corrupt and smudged original manuscript. So, it is well conceivable that they also confused the H and the X letters. On the sounding of the ayin, it may have depended on who they consulted. Occasionally they may have deemed to hear it as a deep choking sound, which they put down as a "gayin". Their atrocious treatment of Hebrew names makes (unfortunately!) their work nigh useless for the study of the ancient Hebrew speech.
Isaac Fried, Boston University On Apr 29, 2011, at 8:12 PM, Will Parsons wrote: > On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 19:27:32 -0400, Isaac Fried <[email protected]> > wrote: >> 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. > > I can't be completely sure abount Phennana, but I don't think it's an > accident. I mentioned several possibilities in a previous post, > but what I > think is most likely is that the form represents a quantitative > metathesis, > i.e., the [n]-[n:] sequence was reversed to [n:]-[n], possibly at > the time > of transcription, or perhaps afterward. > > Why the double m and double t in "committee"? Because this word is > derived > from Latin in which the doubled letters represent geminated > consonants. > English doesn't have geminated consonants (with certain > exceptions), but > keeps the historical spelling (as does French, but as opposed to > Spanish). > >> 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. > > There is no reason to assume the LXX translators mistook a heth for > a he. > Heth apparently had two distinct sounds at the time, neither of > which prehaps > corresponded exactly to a Greek sound. The nearest equivalent to > the lighter > of the two would be Greek [h], represented by the "rough breathing" > mark on an > initial vowel. But the breathing marks were not regularly used, > and during > the Hellenistic era the [h] sound was in the process of being > dropped in > pronunciation. As a result, in Hebrew names beginning with either > a he or a > heth, the Greek forms will show nothing, so "Anna" is expected for > חנה. > > The double pronunciation of both heth and ayin has been discussed > on this > list before. The results as far as LXX transcriptions are usually: > > heth #1 [ħ] => Greek [h], theoretically represented by a rough > breathing if > at the beginning of a word, but in practice likely > dropped. > Sure to be dropped if not word-initial. > > heth #2 [x] => Greek Χ (chi) > > ayin #1 [ʕ] => Usually not indicated in Greek, but sporadically > indicated > impressionistically by a vowel (e.g. Ροβοαμ/ > Rhoboam for > רחבעם) > > ayin #2 [ɣ] => Greek Γ (gamma) > >> 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. > > There are many uncertainties in tracing the phonetic changes that > were taking > place both in Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek during this period. It is > safe to say, > however, that the Greek Φ/Ph was *not* pronounced [f]. At most, it > may have > reached the point of becoming a bilabial fricative [ɸ], and it may > have still > had its older pronunciation as an aspirated stop [ph]. The fact > that the > letter Π/P was not used must indicate that the Hebrew pe was no > longer > perceived as a plain stop [p], but beyond that it is hard to say > for sure. > >> 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. > > In other words, they do not remove *all* dagheshes, only those that > make no > difference to the modern pronunciation. > >> 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? > > -- > Will Parsons _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
