isaac, there are so many arguments against this new conjecture of yours, that i dont know where to start.
1. for fixing an odd rare word in the text you non-challantly introduce a major havock in pronounciation. 2. conjectures abound, but proofs are scanty. 3. it is much simpler to assume that differences between tiberian and babylonian niquds reflect a difference between two slightly different dialects, after one millenium of independent coexistence. 4. if the masorah wanted a cere or xiriq in ECOQ/ECAQ, why did they use segol? 5. your argument implicitly assumes changing segol to xiriq (i take it, XASER) would solve the dagesh forte. based on what? maybe a xiriq MALE (or cere) would solve the problem, since the dagesh there represents (as far as my conjectures go...) the missing YOD. indeed, in YB$ --> )YB$ a xiriq male replaces the dagesh. 6. one may in fact conjecture, exactly the opposite of your conjecture, that cere evolved from a segol + yod. example: YRD --> )ERED, or Y$B --> )E$EB. the initial cere represents E-segol prefix (as in all future 1st qal declensions) plus YOD. clearly the E-prefix could not be xiriq, otherwise what would be the 3rd person prefix? in other words, normally a diphthong (cere) evolves from two simple vowels. 7. i add an interesting discussion on niqud http://curiousjew.blogspot.com/2009/08/biblical-hebrew-class-1.html where the following example is discussed: arumim (naked) is always with dagesh forte, arumim (devious etc) is always w/o dagesh forte. and both words have equal niqud otherwise. of course, the SINGULAR is most probably different: (EROM vs (ARUM, and in my opinion may be seen as the source of the difference. but, what is YOUR explanation? 8. your example EShKAREKh is about dagesh qal in beged-kefet after shwa na. i think that normally masorah puts the dagesh there after both xiriq and segol, so your modification would be irrelevant here. examples: ishbor: xiriq followed by dagesh qal eshbor: segol followed by dagesh qal. (inbal: xiriq followed by dagesh qal eshkol: segol followed by dagesh qal. best nir cohen >>>>>>>>>> De: Isaac Fried <[email protected]> Cópia: Biblical Hebrew list <[email protected]> Para: Biblical Hebrew list <[email protected]> Data: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 17:13:45 -0400 Assunto: [b-hebrew] segol In connection with the ET question, I will reiterate my conjecture that the three-point segol niqud (which is a Tiberian invention, absent in the Babylonian punctuation system) is but a notational compromise between the two-point cere (schwa?) and the one-point xiriq. This explains the presence of the dagesh in such words as E$KAR אֶשְׁכָּרֵךְ of Ez. 27:15, punctuated with a segol under the aleph in our books, but with a xiriq in the Babylonian system. Also, of ECAQ and ECOK of Is. 44:3, where the segol seems to mean that the suggested reading is E, but that the "original" reading was I, with a xirik, and hence the dagesh in the letter C. Isaac Fried, Boston University _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
