Is the WLC based on the BHS, or based on the LC?

The main place for discussion the Hebrew Bible, its language and message.
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
ralph
Posts: 34
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 7:20 am

Re: Is the WLC based on the BHS, or based on the LC?

Postby ralph » Wed Jul 05, 2017 6:48 am

@Isaac Your reference to 2 Sam doesn't exist. Chapter 14 of 2 Samuel has 33 chapters and you referenced a chapter 49.

As for your other references, i'm talking about the BGDKFT letter at the start of a word.


So let's say a previous word has a Mercha trope. So, That's conjunctive. And the last syllable is open.

Then the next word's first BGDKFT letter will have no dagesh.

Examples.

Gen 1:2 Hayta Tohu Hayta has a Mercha and and ends in an open syllable. The first letter of the next word, when it's a BGDKFT letter, as it is with Tohu, has no dagesh.

Hopefully I will be able to find more examples . I think I will

Isaac Fried
Posts: 862
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Is the WLC based on the BHS, or based on the LC?

Postby Isaac Fried » Thu Jul 06, 2017 8:21 pm

Ralph,
you are saying: "So let's say a previous word has a Mercha trope. So, That's conjunctive. And the last syllable is open.

Then the next word's first BGDKFT letter will have no dagesh."

It is a highly sounding rule, but I am sorry to say that I doubt it. Is the intended purpose of the dagesh, or the lack thereof, to control the enunciation of the BGDKFT, to change B into V and vice versa? For what, to ease the flow of words in the clause?

First, let us note that the dagesh appears also after a qubutz, that in my opinion is the remnant of the personal pronoun הוּא HU, he'. For instance, Ex. 3:2
וְהִנֵּה הַסְּנֶה בֹּעֵר בָּאֵשׁ וְהַסְּנֶה אֵינֶנּוּ אֻכָּל
ASV: "and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed."
with אֻכָּל = א-הוּא-כל, with הוּא 'he', referring here to the bush benefiting (or suffering) or being subjected to the act אכל, 'eat'. The niqudless writing אכּל but with a dot inside the letter כ reminds the reader of the preceding U and the reading UKAL. As an unintended (unintended!) effect the pregnant letter כּ is pronounced by us now as a hard K, rather that a soft ח.
On the other hand, the word אוּכַל, 'I will be able', is with an empty (and hence a soft) letter כ, since the U is already hinted to by the shuruq, and אוּכל being pronounced now אוּחל.

Consider further Ex. 31:16-17
וְשָׁמְרוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת לַעֲשׂוֹת אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת לְדֹרֹתָם בְּרִית עוֹלָם. בֵּינִי וּבֵין בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אוֹת הִוא לְעֹלָם כִּי שֵׁשֶׁת יָמִים עָשָׂה יהוה אֶת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֶת הָאָרֶץ וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי שָׁבַת וַיִּנָּפַשׁ
בְנֵי VNEI, no dagesh in the first letter ב B following a shuruq.
הַשַּׁבָּת HA$ABAT with a dagesh in the letter שׁ shin following a patax, then another dagesh in the letter ב B, following another patax.
בְּרִית BRIYT with a dagesh in the letter B, being the first letter of the word.
בֵּינִי BEINIY with a dagesh in the letter B, being the first letter of the word.
וּבֵין UVEIN with no dagesh in the letter B.
בְּנֵי BNEI with a dagesh in the letter B, being the first letter of the word.
כִּי KIY with a dagesh in the letter כ K, being the first letter of the word.
הַשָּׁמַיִם HA$AMAYIM with a dagesh in the letter שׁ shin following the patax of -הַ
וּבַיּוֹם UVAYOM with a dagesh in the letter י yod following the patax under the letter ב B.
הַשְּׁבִיעִי with a dagesh in the letter shin (which is with schwa), and consequently with no dagesh in the letter B.
וַיִּנָּפַשׁ VAIYNAFA$ with a (lame) dagesh in the letter י yod following the patax of וַ, and a dagesh in the letter nun following the xiriq of the yod.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

ralph
Posts: 34
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 7:20 am

Re: Is the WLC based on the BHS, or based on the LC?

Postby ralph » Fri Jul 07, 2017 8:01 am

@Isaac Perhaps the rule I mentioned could be broken sometimes but which of those examples you gave breaks the rule that I mentioned?

I do not understand why you are giving me examples like "הַשַּׁבָּת HA$ABAT with a dagesh in the letter שׁ shin following a patax," That has nothing at all to do with the rule I mentioned. I am talking for example of a pair of words and talking about about the first letter of the second word. And what vowel it is isn't relevant to the rule I mentioned.

Here are more examples with the name paroh/faroh, ones showing faroh and one contrasting one not meeting the criteria of the rule I said and thus showing paroh so making my point.

gen 41:38 bainay faroh
beainay has a munach, i think that is a conjunctive accent like mercha, so same effect.

gen 41:34 yaaseh faroh

gen 41:33 yaireh faroh (Yaireh has an open syllable ending in aleph, and it it has a conjunctive accent. The next word has a BGDKFT letter and we see that BGDKFT letter at the start of that second word, has no dot)

in contrast, gen 41:7 vayikatz paroh.. While Vayikatz [last syllable] has a mercha, it doesn't end in an open syllable

It is quite common in biblical hebrew to see a word whose first letter is BGDKFT but it doesn't have a dot, and then you see that the previous word ended in an open syllable and had a conjunctive accent. So you see that rule applied.

Isaac Fried
Posts: 862
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Is the WLC based on the BHS, or based on the LC?

Postby Isaac Fried » Fri Jul 07, 2017 6:31 pm

Ralph,
In Gen. 2:3 we read
כִּ֣י ב֤וֹ שָׁבַת֙ מִכָּל מְלַאכְתּ֔וֹ אֲשֶׁר בָּרָ֥א אֱלֹהִ֖ים לַֽעֲשֽׂוֹת
ASV: "because that in it he rested from all his work which God had created and made"
My question remains: what do the naqdaniym (the Masoretes) trying to achieve by avoiding a dagesh in the letter B of ב֤וֹ. Is it to change BO into VO for some reasons of phonetic or fluency in order to articulate the reading of the biblical text?
There must be some practical purpose to the rule.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

ralph
Posts: 34
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 7:20 am

Re: Is the WLC based on the BHS, or based on the LC?

Postby ralph » Sun Jul 09, 2017 7:25 pm

I'm not 100% sure if the munach mapach combination e.g. one you show in Gen 2:3, meets the criteria 'cos I don't know that much about trope, but I guess it does..


I think it must be to do with the phonetic or fluency of reading the text. I wouldn't presume it's a change made by the masoretes.. Regarding sound, perhaps it's the idea that an open syllable followed by a hard letter, when the first word has a conjunctive accent, then a plosive BGDKFT shuts off the sound of the open syllable in a way that speakers found unpleasant, and they found it more pleasing to soften the BGDKFT letter.

There are some combinations that perhaps don't tend to occur like we say BeVait (in a house) rather than BeBait..

Another you probably know is vav with shva, followed by BGDKFT with shva, is illegal, it never happens AFAIK, and what happens is the vav gets a shuruk and the BGFKFT letter loses its dagesh.

That's all just me guessing and I don't know much.

And on a different note unrelated to this rule, but since you mention "the masoretes" as if there is just one group. The vowel marks we have are from the tiberian masoretes.. so who knows maybe the babylonian masoretes might've taken a different view, I don't know and perhaps we can't know.. There wasn't just the one masoretic group. Many think the ashkenazi vowels we have (variant cholams aside), are closer to the tiberian masoretes, while the sephardi pronunciation is closer to the babylonian. One reason is that the tiberians only have one marking for kamatz, and the theory i suppose is, that if the tiberian masoretes pronounced hebrew with two different kamatz sounds like the sephardim, then they'd have made two different markings one for each.


Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests