Let's look at an example, and you explain what's going on to me.
Joshua 10:27
וַיְהִ֞י לְעֵ֣ת ׀ בּ֣וֹא הַשֶּׁ֗מֶשׁ צִוָּ֤ה יְהוֹשֻׁ֙עַ֙ וַיֹּֽרִידוּם֙ מֵעַ֣ל הָעֵצִ֔ים וַיַּ֨שְׁלִכֻ֔ם אֶל־הַמְּעָרָ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר נֶחְבְּאוּ־שָׁ֑ם וַיָּשִׂ֜מוּ אֲבָנִ֤ים גְּדֹלוֹת֙ עַל־פִּ֣י הַמְּעָרָ֔ה עַד־עֶ֖צֶם הַיּ֥וֹם הַזֶּֽה׃
The word
הוריד most naturally has a vav in the first syllable when in the imperfect:
יורידו. We would also expect the internal yod to remain in place in the imperfect:
ישימו. These things should not change when they are put in the vav-consecutive. We should see both
ויורידו (with the object suffix
ויורידום) and
וישימו. Yet, the text has both of these written defectively.
The subject of
וישלכם is the same as the subject of
וירידום and has the same object suffix (
ם for "them"). It should be written with a vav at the very least,
וישלכום. It's already defective, and we should read it as plural because it has the same subject as
וירידום, which is explicitly plural.
We see in this verse four confirmed instances of defective spelling, and yet only in the one do you say it isn't defective but should be read according to the consonants!
וַיֹּֽרִידוּם֙ = וַיּוֹרִידוּם (vayoridúm)
וַיַּ֨שְׁלִכֻ֔ם = וַיַּשְׁלִכוּם (vayashlichúm) [without acknowledging the missing yod]
וַיָּשִׂ֜מוּ = וַיָּשִׂ֫ימוּ (vayasímu)
גְּדֹלוֹת֙ = גְּדוֹלוֹת (gdolot)
These four are confirmed defective spellings, even if
גְּדֹלוֹת is a common spelling.
Your argument that
וישלכם can only be qal based on the consonants is what is suspect. If the long vav can be missing, why not the long yod? Your argument would hang on your explaining why it is impossible for the yod to be missing. Sometimes the consonantal text assumes a level of knowledge regarding the language. It shouldn't be used to invalidate the language itself. In this case, it would be assumed that the reader knows that
שלך must be read in the hiphil.
It often happens that words are written defectively. Creating a whole new reading of the text based on this fact is simply untenable, and this does not mean that I reject the consonants of the text. Again, an unsupportable claim.
If reading "according to the consonants" is your thing, then you must also read
וישמו as
vayasmu (without the yod) and
וירידום as
vayaridum (without the vav). These are clearly impossible forms, and if you were reading correctly you would realize that
וַיִּשְׁלֹךְ vayishloch (a qal of
שלך) is a form that doesn't exist and the normal vav-consecutive hiphil reduces i to e, so
וַיַּשְׁלֵךְ as a hiphil is obviously reading "according to the consonants." There are just a handful of forms of this verb that are missing the yod. It can obviously be explained.
Can you explain how וישמו and וירידום should be read "according to the consonants"?
Thank you.