A few times at least when reading Tanakh through, I read following the Masoretic points slavishly, exactly as written. As a result, when I read Tanakh today, I still tend to follow the Masoretic pronunciations, even over a decade after I stopped using their points.Jason Hare wrote:I think the grammarians demonstrate quite clearly whence the different forms emerge in most cases. I would think that you've given up before having a thorough understanding of the Masoretic vocalization system.kwrandolph wrote:It appears to me that sometimes the Masoretes assigned points on an ad hoc basis rather than following a strict pattern.
However, as I was reading Tanakh, I noticed more and more often where the points indicated one meaning, while the contexts indicated different meanings. I was reading for personal reasons, not as a scholarly study, so I didn’t make a record of these differences. I simply stopped using the Masoretic points. Today I tend to give the Masoretic pronunciations to words as the contexts indicate their meanings.
My understanding is not based on a rejection of the Masoretic tradition, rather my understanding is based on the text itself—its word meanings, grammar and syntax.Jason Hare wrote:Such instances are certainly few and far between. You should not build a system on rejection of the Masoretic tradition.kwrandolph wrote:Other times it appears that they misunderstood Biblical Hebrew.
I agree here.Jason Hare wrote:Pronunciation is the least important feature of a language.
See above.Jason Hare wrote:I've always been curious how you might sound reading biblical Hebrew. Have you ever considered making any recordings of yourself reading? Given that you don't use the vocalization, I have to wonder how you might read בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ, for example.
Karl W. Randolph.