Why does the WLC have no meteg marks?

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: 32
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 7:20 am

Why does the WLC have no meteg marks?

Postby ralph » Fri Jul 21, 2017 10:15 am

Why does the WLC have no meteg marks?

I know that in unicode the meteg and silluq use the same character ( \u05C3), and the silluq occurs when the sof pasuk occurs.. I notice that every instance of the character representing meteg and silluq (\u05C3), occurs on the last word of the verse and is a silluq, and there are no metegs. Why does the WLC have no meteg marks?

Thanks

User avatar
Kirk Lowery
Site Admin
Posts: 158
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 12:03 pm
Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Why does the WLC have no meteg marks?

Postby Kirk Lowery » Fri Jul 21, 2017 10:30 am

Ralph,

Do you have a specific place in the text where you think there should be a meteg and it is absent? Just as a random example, I was reading in Qoh 1 and saw זוֹרֵ֥חַֽ in verse 5, third word from the end.
Kirk E. Lowery, PhD
B-Hebrew Site Administrator & Co-moderator
blog: https://blogs.emdros.org/eh
#mb-hga

ralph
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 7:20 am

Re: Why does the WLC have no meteg marks?

Postby ralph » Fri Jul 21, 2017 1:42 pm

ah I just realised there are some meteg marks in the WLC, like LaRakiya Gen 1:8, and VayHee Gen 1:5

My Feldheim Tanach marks metegs here that aren't in the WLC
http://i.imgur.com/KJw8zGL.png
Gen 1:2 Hayta and Gen 1:8 HaRakiya

I have no idea where there should or shouldn't be metegs, so I can't say where I think there should/shouldn't be one, and I guess metegs are really hard to see in the Leningrad Codex too.

Regards

User avatar
Kirk Lowery
Site Admin
Posts: 158
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 12:03 pm
Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Why does the WLC have no meteg marks?

Postby Kirk Lowery » Sat Jul 22, 2017 9:58 am

There are rules for accentuating the text. Just like there are differences in the consonants and vowels of manuscripts, there are also variants in the manuscripts. When reading printed editions one has to remember that editors have made judgments about ambiguities or "corrected" scribal "errors," sometimes without knowing what they are doing.

As one of the editors of the WLC for many years, I've spent hundreds of hours looking at the Leningrad Codex photographs, often under magnification. Once you get used to the scribal handwriting, it's not hard to read for the most part. Our guiding principle was to represent the text as it is, and make no judgment as to whether the scribe made an error. I'm not surprised that L does not always agree with other manuscripts and printed editions. Just keep in mind that the WLC is intended to be an exact digital representation of L, warts and all. That way, the reader/user can make their own judgments as to "right and wrong".

Blessings,
Kirk
Kirk E. Lowery, PhD
B-Hebrew Site Administrator & Co-moderator
blog: https://blogs.emdros.org/eh
#mb-hga


Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest