"Behold Me" question

[ducky]

Hello Karl

Surely the pointing marks don't come to say that this is the pronunciation of Moses.
But it does represent an old pronunciation of the Hebrew (from its Biblical late-era more or less).
And this late pronunciation is also a natural evolution that was made by the natural togue of the Hebrews, So there no reason to "disrespect" that.

Anyway, even if you claim that it was all an artificial pronunciation, then you actually support a pattern.
Because he who "invent" rules, do it with a pattern.

And when there is a word which has pointing, it is interesting to find the reason for the artificial pattern (in your opinion), and what were the rules that the artificial Masoretic men invented.

So no matter if it is artificial or not, there must be a reason.
and it is interesting to realize that.

[Jason Hare]

It appears to me that sometimes the Masoretes assigned points on an ad hoc basis rather than following a strict pattern.

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.

Other times it appears that they misunderstood Biblical Hebrew.

Such instances are certainly few and far between. You should not build a system on rejection of the Masoretic tradition.

For these two reasons, we can’t trust the Masoretic points always to be accurate as far as meaning is concerned. There’s no question that those points don’t reflect Biblical Hebrew pronunciations, which have been lost.

Pronunciation is the least important feature of a language. If someone speaks like an American from the South or like a Yankee or like a Brit, it's the same language. It sounds different, and there may be dialectical variation, but the language is the same. Yes, the pronunciation of Hebrew before the second Temple may be lost, but who needs it? In the end, as long as your pronunciation is consistent, it doesn't matter what system you use. That is, unless you want to be intelligible to other users of the language - in which case, you will need to adopt a standard way of pronouncing the language so as to be able to communicate or be understood.

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.

[Jason Hare]

Hello Karl

Surely the pointing marks don't come to say that this is the pronunciation of Moses.
But it does represent an old pronunciation of the Hebrew (from its Biblical late-era more or less).
And this late pronunciation is also a natural evolution that was made by the natural togue of the Hebrews, So there no reason to "disrespect" that.

Anyway, even if you claim that it was all an artificial pronunciation, then you actually support a pattern.
Because he who "invent" rules, do it with a pattern.

And when there is a word which has pointing, it is interesting to find the reason for the artificial pattern (in your opinion), and what were the rules that the artificial Masoretic men invented.

So no matter if it is artificial or not, there must be a reason.
and it is interesting to realize that.

I agree with you. There must be a reason for the system. Do you have access to Gesenius's grammar?

[ducky]

Hello Jason

I loved your big comment (above your last one)

I think Gesenius's grammar can be found on the internet
I saw it on Wiki
I can't say I use it, I use a lot of Hebrew books.

What is the case that you have in mind?

[Jason Hare]

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.

I didn't want this to get lost in the shuffle.

Is there any chance that you'd be interested in recording perhaps the first five verses of Genesis in Hebrew? I'm extremely interested in how you read the text aloud without the Masoretic vocalizations and without the experience of speaking modern Hebrew. Hebrew text without vowels has traditionally been possible only for those who have a spoken form of the language to go hand-in-hand with the consonantal text. Trying to read it without points while not having a spoken vernacular would be akin to trying to read the words enough, through, ought, and cough without knowing how the words were pronounced ahead of time. If you had these words without a pronunciation tradition, you'd probably read them all the same.

I'm very intrigued to hear how you read Hebrew.

[Jason Hare]

What is the case that you have in mind?

I was just thinking you might look up his comments about the forms of הנה with personal endings and the placement of dagesh. I might look up a section to refer you to.

[ducky]

It is funny
I already answer the question above.

One member asked about the second Dagesh. And in my mind, I thought that there was a Dagesh. But there isn't.
(I saw in my mind the form of הנני with Tsere)

I spent a day looking at books to try to find the reason for a Dagesh that does not even exist.

The Dagesh can be found only after the form of הנני and הננו when they come with Segol.
And that is fine, and I wrote the reason for it above.

[ducky]

I just looked at my above comment and I even wrote the הנני with Tsere and Dagesh, which is wrong.

For some reason, I was caught by this pointing marks and couldn't shake it from my mind.
So I can't edit that, and I hope it won't confuse people.
but the form of הנני with Tsere doesn't have Dagesh.

[Jason Hare]

It is funny
I already answer the question above.

One member asked about the second Dagesh. And in my mind, I thought that there was a Dagesh. But there isn't.
(I saw in my mind the form of הנני with Tsere)

I spent a day looking at books to try to find the reason for a Dagesh that does not even exist.

The Dagesh can be found only after the form of הנני and הננו when they come with Segol.
And that is fine, and I wrote the reason for it above.

Well, the dagesh is natural to הִנֶּה. It is lost when the vowel under the nun becomes sheva (by the rule of skinemlevy).

הִנֵּה (lexical form) > *הִנְּנִי (added suffix) > הִנְנִי (actual form with loss of dagesh)

יְדַבֵּר (grammatical form) > *וַיְּדַבֵּר (added vav prefix) > וַיְדַבֵּר (actual form with loss of dagesh)

יְהִי (grammatical form) > *וַיְּהִי (added vav prefix) > וַיְהִי (actual form with loss of dagesh)

This is perfectly expected.

[ducky]

Yes.

But the question was about the Dagesh in the second nun of הנני.
No the first one.