B-Hebrew: The Biblical Hebrew Forum

Refael Shalev wrote: Thu Oct 01, 2020 12:08 pmIt's quite a riddle how did anyone could manage doubled ס.

I find it no problem, as long as there’s a vowel between the two.

Karl W. Randolph.

Exodus 12:4 תכסו(takhoxxu?) כסא (kixxe?)

Refael Shalev wrote: Thu Oct 01, 2020 2:17 pm Exodus 12/4 תכסו(takhoxxu?) כסא (kixxe?)

There are no double XX in those words. If the Masoretic points indicate that there should be doubled XX in those words, the Masoretic points are wrong.

Karl W. Randolph.

Refael Shalev wrote: Thu Oct 01, 2020 2:17 pm Exodus 12:4 תכסו(takhoxxu?) כסא (kixxe?)

Just to see the words: תָּכֹסּוּ and כִּסֵּא

kwrandolph wrote: Thu Oct 01, 2020 3:09 pm There are no double XX in those words. If the Masoretic points indicate that there should be doubled XX in those words, the Masoretic points are wrong.

Karl W. Randolph.

Dagesh ḥazaq doubles a consonant. כִּסֵּא is kissēʾ.

New members are not used to the idiosyncrasies of this forum's most prominent members. They don't realize that the entire world of biblical Hebrew professors teaches that dagesh double consonants, while the two dominant posters at B-Hebrew declare from their own authority that dagesh does nothing.

Thanks Jason I don't know how to put nikkud.

Jason Hare wrote: Thu Oct 01, 2020 3:13 pmDagesh ḥazaq doubles a consonant. כִּסֵּא is kissēʾ.

New members are not used to the idiosyncrasies of this forum's most prominent members. They don't realize that the entire world of biblical Hebrew professors teaches that dagesh double consonants, while the two dominant posters at B-Hebrew declare from their own authority that dagesh does nothing.

Why should anyone even consider the Masoretic points, which include the dagesh? Is the rejection of the Masoretic points based on our own authority, or from the evidence?

1) These points, including the dagesh, weren’t invented until a thousand years after Hebrew ceased to be spoken as a mother tongue.
2) During those thousand years, Jews whose mother tongue was Aramaic read and spoke Hebrew with Aramaic pronunciations.
3) Those Aramaic pronunciations changed not only the pronunciations of the unwritten vowels, they even changed the pronunciations of some of the consonants.
4) The Aramaic readings influenced the meanings of some vocabulary.
5) The Masoretic points preserved a version of grammar that differs significantly from Biblical Hebrew grammar.

So why should anyone give the Masoretic points any significance whatsoever? Why give them even a second glance? How are they more than just visual clutter on the page?

I never bothered to learn how to insert the Masoretic points into Hebrew.

Jason, can you give a defense of the Masoretic points other than your Argumentum Ad Populum that you presented here?

Are we discussing Biblical Hebrew, or something else?

Karl W. Randolph.

Hi Karl,

I do agree with you on some points about that not all of the Dagesh's represents a very old pronunciation, but in times, the Dagesh's were part of the pronounciations from part of the evolution of the languages (also in the biblical times)
Just like any language has its evolution in any given time, so does Hebrew had it, inside the biblical era, and also post it.

About the Armaic stuff that you wrote.
I think you said it yourself, that you don't know Aramaic, and its grammar and its noun-forms and verb-forms, so How can you claim your claim if you don't know.

Aramaic has different forms, different grammar and pronunciation, and Hebrew is different.
So how can you say that Hebrew spoke like Aramaic when you can just take the bible and compare Daniel to the other books.
Do you see the same forms or grammar?

kwrandolph wrote: Sat Oct 10, 2020 4:18 am Are we discussing Biblical Hebrew, or something else?

I don't know what you're discussing, but my Bible and every printed Bible I've ever seen has the Masoretic vocalization. It is, therefore, biblical Hebrew.

Sounds like conspiracy theory.
You say that hebrew was influenced by the ambience after the exile but negating interaction with other semitic languages in early times?