Haggai 1:2

[ducky]

Hi Chris,

The Sept. is in Greek, and I wrote the English translation for it
(the sentence that I had a problem understanding and asked for help).

**
As for the note,
I assume that this book collects all kinds of notes about the text and all the information about the different versions that it can find.
And with that, it checks authentic hand scripts,
And also write Masoretic books with a lot of notes about what they know about hand scripts.
And also, check the scripts that are found in archeology
And also, they check other translations.

And so, if this book knows that there is a Syrian translation or that the Sept. writes a verse in another way, it doesn't need to search for some MT note so it can copy-paste that - but it writes the other version itself.

The fact that this note starts with צ"ל (as "should be") doesn't sound like an MT note (that would argue with the MT way).
the form of "should be" of arguing with the MT seems more like an "academic" whether it is from the Academia or a person who writes in an academic way.

The best thing that you can do is read the book intro and then see what they write about their way of writing the notes.

[Chris Watts]

Made a blooper when I wrote: "I don't read hebrew so the septuagint is a no go," I did actually mean Greek, of course I read hebrew.

I am just beginning to perceive perhaps some misunderstanding going on between us. I kept wondering why you referred to "the book" in a lot of your dialogues, but I over-looked that. Then this last post you are asking me to check the book again, but it is not a book, it is the hebrew scripture I am reading, there never was a book.

As far as the hebrew is concerned I have no issue at all with it, I never did, I just needed to know what the notes at the bottom were saying and also was curious about the maquef, and the way this clause was written using an infinitive absolute.

chris watts

[ducky]

Hi Chris,

About the עת with Segol and Maquef...

If you check in the old Masoretic book דקדוקי הטעמים, then already there, there is a note about the word עת and its way...
Check line 18 in this link
https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?r ... 04&hilite=
It says
כל קריה עת קמץ קטן בר מן ג פתח קטן = every reading of עת is with Tsere, except for three
(And then he writes the three cases)

*****
As for more general rule about the Tsere/Segol change in small words...
In Masoretic books, there are texts that talk about small words like
לב=lev יש=yesh הן=hen כן=ken שן=shen and more
So there is a certain principle about small words that change their Tsere vowel to Segol.
One of the texts also adds the word עת to the list.

The Basic principle is this:
If the word which usually comes with Tsere is linked with a Maquef to a word that its First syllable is accented, then the Tsere turns to Segol.
(This is what happened, in this case, עת-בא עת-בית)

But as you can see, in the word עת there is an exception to this rule,
and the עת-נדתה is written with Segol even though there is a Maquef, and the first syllable of the second word is not an accented one.

[Chris Watts]

Thankyou David, this is some nice clarification.
chris watts

[Jason Hare]

The maqaf serves to join the two words together, which makes עת a closed and unaccented syllable. עֵת by itself is accented and has a long vowel. עֶת־ represents a closed unaccented syllable, which must have a short vowel (segol).

[ducky]

Hi Jason,

The Grammatical rule is basically right, but the cases of the Tsere in the small words is an exception for that rule.

For example,
בעת-ההיא
בעת-פקדתים
ועת-צרה
Even Though they a linked with Maqaf, they are voweled with Tsere

But...
לעת-צר
לעת-קץ
לעת-יום
Are with Segol.

In both cases, the Vowel of עת is in a closed unaccented syllable.

******
Another word, for example, is לב
לב-פרעה
לב-אדם
לב-אמנון
Even Though they a linked with Maqaf, they are voweled with Tsere

But...
לב-איש
לב-מלך
בלב-ים
בלב-חרשי רע (which the accented vowel is in חר)
Are with Segol.

In both cases, the Vowel of עת is in a closed unaccented syllable.

[Glenn Dean]

The fact that this note starts with צ"ל (as "should be") doesn't sound like an MT note (that would argue with the MT way).

You mentioned "should be" so I wonder if צ"ל means "should be L" (as in L equals Leningrad Codex)????

Glenn

[ducky]

Hi Glenn

the צ"ל is an initial for:
צריך להיות (should be)
צריך לקרוא (should read/should be read)
צריך לכתוב (should write/should be written)

and basically: any kind of:
צריך ל
should (any infinitive).

(I mean that the letter ל is the prefix of the infinitive).

[Glenn Dean]

thanxs Ducky for the info!

Glenn