Petr: On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 4:33 AM, Petr Tomasek <[email protected]> wrote:
> > … > > You are obviously right that the exact pronounciation developed > between Biblical times and the times of the Masoretic codices we know > today. But this changes nothing on the fact that the Masoretic > tradition is a reliable one: the vast majority of changes that > happened to this tradition are simple sound shifts (and similar phenomena) > that have absolutely no influence on the ability to discern particular > forms, i.e. it has no influence on the meaning. > Thanks, I think you have explained more clearly what I write about when I distinguish between pointing as an indicator of Biblical pronunciation, and pointing as an indicator of meaning. > > So Karl's claim that because the Masoretic pronounciation doesn't > reflect exactly the pronounciation "in the biblical times" (which itself > may mean many things given the complicated textual history of the bible!) > it shouldn't be trusted - or worse, one can arbitrarily "vocalize" > the consonantal text is a complete nonsense. > But this paragraph is completely off. The pointing is just ancient commentary, and to be taken with a grain of salt just like any other commentary. And where I say it’s wrong in meaning, I mean that the meaning indicated by the pointing contradicts what the consonantal text in its context indicates should be the meaning. > > P.T. > > > Karl W. Randolph.
_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
