A review of the 77 ambiguous early meteg marks in UXLC
Posted: Sun Mar 24, 2024 10:15 pm
Sometimes manuscript ל is clearer than its transcription in BHS! Consider ויעשו in Exodus 12:50:
Although the placement of the meteg under the pataḥ of the vav is a little out-of-the-ordinary, it makes the "ownership" of this meteg clear.
Contrast with what this looks like in BHS:
Yeah, with a microscope (this image was taken with a USB microscope) you can see that the meteg is under the vav. But the existence of "early meteg" in BHS still leaves you wondering, even with a microscope, whether that micro-alignment was intentional.
In transcribing BHS, WLC chose to make this meteg "early on yod" rather than "normal on vav." While this is understandable, transcribing from the somewhat-ambiguous BHS, it is clearly wrong, if you consult the manuscript.
This case is one of 77 such cases in UXLC that I have put in a comprehensive review.
Although the placement of the meteg under the pataḥ of the vav is a little out-of-the-ordinary, it makes the "ownership" of this meteg clear.
Contrast with what this looks like in BHS:
Yeah, with a microscope (this image was taken with a USB microscope) you can see that the meteg is under the vav. But the existence of "early meteg" in BHS still leaves you wondering, even with a microscope, whether that micro-alignment was intentional.
In transcribing BHS, WLC chose to make this meteg "early on yod" rather than "normal on vav." While this is understandable, transcribing from the somewhat-ambiguous BHS, it is clearly wrong, if you consult the manuscript.
This case is one of 77 such cases in UXLC that I have put in a comprehensive review.