B-Hebrew: The Biblical Hebrew Forum

Jason Hare wrote:

kwrandolph wrote:It appears to me that sometimes the Masoretes assigned points on an ad hoc basis rather than following a strict pattern.

I think the grammarians demonstrate quite clearly whence the different forms emerge in most cases. I would think that you've given up before having a thorough understanding of the Masoretic vocalization system.

A few times at least when reading Tanakh through, I read following the Masoretic points slavishly, exactly as written. As a result, when I read Tanakh today, I still tend to follow the Masoretic pronunciations, even over a decade after I stopped using their points.

However, as I was reading Tanakh, I noticed more and more often where the points indicated one meaning, while the contexts indicated different meanings. I was reading for personal reasons, not as a scholarly study, so I didn’t make a record of these differences. I simply stopped using the Masoretic points. Today I tend to give the Masoretic pronunciations to words as the contexts indicate their meanings.

Jason Hare wrote:

kwrandolph wrote:Other times it appears that they misunderstood Biblical Hebrew.

Such instances are certainly few and far between. You should not build a system on rejection of the Masoretic tradition.

My understanding is not based on a rejection of the Masoretic tradition, rather my understanding is based on the text itself—its word meanings, grammar and syntax.

Jason Hare wrote:Pronunciation is the least important feature of a language.

I agree here.

Jason Hare wrote:I've always been curious how you might sound reading biblical Hebrew. Have you ever considered making any recordings of yourself reading? Given that you don't use the vocalization, I have to wonder how you might read בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ, for example.

See above.

Karl W. Randolph.

ducky wrote:Surely the pointing marks don't come to say that this is the pronunciation of Moses.
But it does represent an old pronunciation of the Hebrew (from its Biblical late-era more or less).
And this late pronunciation is also a natural evolution that was made by the natural togue of the Hebrews, So there no reason to "disrespect" that.

Anyway, even if you claim that it was all an artificial pronunciation, then you actually support a pattern.
Because he who "invent" rules, do it with a pattern.

I don’t know how many times I have to say this, but I don’t think that the Masoretic points indicate an artificial pronunciation. Rather they record the pronunciations that they received after over a thousand years of peoples, who were not native speakers of the language, spoke inserting the pronunciations of the languages that they actually spoke. All the Masoretes invented was a way to record the pronunciations of the vowels and other changes of Hebrew that they had received.

Karl W. Randolph.

ducky wrote:Hello Jason

I loved your big comment (above your last one)

I think Gesenius's grammar can be found on the internet
I saw it on Wiki
I can't say I use it, I use a lot of Hebrew books.

What is the case that you have in mind?

Gesenius’ grammar is online at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesenius'_Hebrew_Grammar

Karl W. Randolph.

ducky wrote:Yes.

But the question was about the Dagesh in the second nun of הנני.
No the first one.

I would surmise that it also is affected by the presence of the sheva. That is, you cannot have a vocal sheva before a dagesh. Therefore, the dagesh drops out.

Hello

Thank you, Karl, for the link.

Jason, the second Dagesh was not dropped because it has no reason to be there for the first place.
it was just Hinne+ni.

Only when there is a Segol, then the Dagesh comes.

ducky wrote:Hello

Thank you, Karl, for the link.

Jason, the second Dagesh was not dropped because it has no reason to be there for the first place.
it was just Hinne+ni.

Only when there is a Segol, then the Dagesh comes.

Compare the following:

הִנֶּ֫נִּי
אֵינֶ֫נִּי
עוֹדֶ֫נִּי

This phenomenon is called by Gesenius the Nun energicum (cf. §58 i–l). You can look at those pages for more information. Indeed, it's discussed with relation to הִנֵּה specifically at §100 o.

Hi Jason.
Thanks.
I wrote about this Nun Energicum in one of my comments above.

ducky wrote:Hi Jason.
Thanks.
I wrote about this Nun Energicum in one of my comments above.

I really need to read the rest of the thread. LOL