On the subject of accuracy of the masoretic vowel tradition. May be of interesting to kwrandolph

A place for those new to Biblical Hebrew to ask basic questions about the language of the Hebrew Bible.
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
Isaac Fried
Posts: 1776
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: On the subject of accuracy of the masoretic vowel tradition. May be of interesting to kwrandolph

Post by Isaac Fried »

Why do you think there is a dagesh in the letter ת of וְשַׁבְתִּי of Ps. 23:6?

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1195
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: On the subject of accuracy of the masoretic vowel tradition. May be of interesting to kwrandolph

Post by Jason Hare »

Isaac Fried wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 11:10 am Why do you think there is a dagesh in the letter ת of וְשַׁבְתִּי of Ps. 23:6?

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com
After a silent sheva, the begedkefet letters are hard. The presence of the dagesh demonstrates that the sheva is silent.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
www.thehebrewcafe.com
Nihil est peius iis, qui paulum aliquid ultra primas litteras
progressi falsam sibi scientiæ persusionem induerunt.

— Quintilian
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1195
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: On the subject of accuracy of the masoretic vowel tradition. May be of interesting to kwrandolph

Post by Jason Hare »

SteveMiller wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 9:52 pm
Isaac Fried wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 6:55 pm Unfortunately I have not seen yet not even one single example of a "corrected" niqud.
Hi Isaac,
I think this is an example of a corrected nikud:
Ps 23:6b ‎ וְשַׁבְתִּ֥י בְּבֵית־יְ֜הוָ֗ה לְאֹ֣רֶךְ יָמִֽים
And I will dwell in the house of the Lord for the length of days.
The way the verb וְשַׁבְתִּ֥י is voweled, it means "and I will return", which doesn't make sense.
All translations translate it as "and I will dwell", which would be וְשִׁבְתִּי, literally "and I to dwell in the house of the Lord for the length of days."
I think it should be וְשָׁבַֽתִּי "and I will rest ...".
Well, literally, "And-dwelling-mine in-house-of-YHWH to-length-of days." ;)

I agree that we should read it as vəšiḇtî rather than as vəšaḇtî.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
www.thehebrewcafe.com
Nihil est peius iis, qui paulum aliquid ultra primas litteras
progressi falsam sibi scientiæ persusionem induerunt.

— Quintilian
Isaac Fried
Posts: 1776
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: On the subject of accuracy of the masoretic vowel tradition. May be of interesting to kwrandolph

Post by Isaac Fried »

Jason writes
After a silent sheva, the begedkefet letters are hard. The presence of the dagesh demonstrates that the sheva is silent
Conversely, I say. The begedkefet letters are hard because they happen to carry in them for some reason a dagesh.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com
User avatar
SteveMiller
Posts: 456
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 7:53 pm
Location: Detroit, MI, USA
Contact:

Re: On the subject of accuracy of the masoretic vowel tradition. May be of interesting to kwrandolph

Post by SteveMiller »

Thanks Jason!

Since we are on the subject of vowels, here is a question I have had for a while.
The 2ms pronoun suffix is ‎ ךָ֙, while the 2fs suffix is ‎ ךְ, differing only in vowels.
Why does the 2ms pronoun suffix often appear with the shevah rather than the qametz?
i.e.
‎ Ps 63:‎7 אִם־זְכַרְתִּ֥יךָ עַל־יְצוּעָ֑י בְּ֜אַשְׁמֻר֗וֹת אֶהְגֶּה־בָּֽךְ׃
Why is the last word, bach, not bechah?
This is so common, that I don't think it could be a mistake.
Sincerely yours,
Steve Miller
Detroit
http://www.voiceInWilderness.info
Honesty is the best policy. - George Washington (1732-99)
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1195
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: On the subject of accuracy of the masoretic vowel tradition. May be of interesting to kwrandolph

Post by Jason Hare »

Isaac Fried wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 6:10 pm Jason writes
After a silent sheva, the begedkefet letters are hard. The presence of the dagesh demonstrates that the sheva is silent
Conversely, I say. The begedkefet letters are hard because they happen to carry in them for some reason a dagesh.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com
"For some reason" isn't very systematic. The reasons have been laid out in all grammars of the language. It's not just some random unknown reason.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
www.thehebrewcafe.com
Nihil est peius iis, qui paulum aliquid ultra primas litteras
progressi falsam sibi scientiæ persusionem induerunt.

— Quintilian
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1195
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: On the subject of accuracy of the masoretic vowel tradition. May be of interesting to kwrandolph

Post by Jason Hare »

SteveMiller wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 9:15 pm Thanks Jason!

Since we are on the subject of vowels, here is a question I have had for a while.
The 2ms pronoun suffix is ‎ ךָ֙, while the 2fs suffix is ‎ ךְ, differing only in vowels.
Why does the 2ms pronoun suffix often appear with the shevah rather than the qametz?
i.e.
‎ Ps 63:‎7 אִם־זְכַרְתִּ֥יךָ עַל־יְצוּעָ֑י בְּ֜אַשְׁמֻר֗וֹת אֶהְגֶּה־בָּֽךְ׃
Why is the last word, bach, not bechah?
This is so common, that I don't think it could be a mistake.
Inflection of the prepositions (Paradigm 20). The prepositions, which are considered nouns, take the suffixes in the manner of nouns. The suffixes of the prepositions are generally those of the nouns; however, there are a fair number of exceptions, especially with the primitive prepositions. With some of these prepositions, in the 2nd f. sing. and the 1st pl., we have ◌ָ instead of the ◌ֵ of the noun. In the 2nd f. sg. we have לָךְ (primitive form la, § b), which contrasts with סוּסֵךְ and (prob. on the analogy of לָךְ) בָּךְ‎, עִמָּךְ‎, אִתָּךְ‎, אֹתָךְ‎ (cf. הִנָּךְ‎ and עוֹדָךְ‎,‎ § 102k); but we have מִמֵּךְ‎ and בֵּינֵךְ‎‎ ‎(‎אֵינֵךְ‎‎ ‎§ 102k). The pausal form of the 2nd m. also takes ◌ָ֑ךְ‎ ‎(בָּ֑ךְ‎, לָ֑ךְ‎, עִמָּ֑ךְ‎, אִתָּ֑ךְ‎, אֹתָ֑ךְ‎)‎ whilst in the noun it takes ◌ֶ֑ךָ (on the analogy of ל״ה nouns, § 94c). In the 1st pl., unlike סוּסֵ֫נוּ, we find לָ֫נוּ and (probably on the analogy of לָ֫נוּ)‎ בָּ֫נוּ‎, עִמָּ֫נוּ‎, אִתָּ֫נוּ‎, אֹתָ֫נוּ‎; but we also find מִמֶּ֫נּוּ‎ (הִנֵּ֑נוּ‎, הִנֶּ֫נּוּ‎, הִנְנוּ‎). In the 3rd pl. the prepositions generally have the suffix ◌ָם‎ like the nouns (סוּסָם‎); but a number of prepositions take, either exclusively or alternatively, the suffix ◌ְהֶם. We find בָּהֶם‎, בָּם‎ (both in a single verse, Lv 11.43); לָהֶם‎; כָּהֵם‎ (ṣeré, § c, 3rd n.); עִמָּהֶם‎, עִמָּם‎; אֶתְהֶם‎ occurs less often than אֹתָם‎.
Paul Joüon and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Roma: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2006), 312–313.

Are you aware that the -aḵ ending is the 2ms ending in Aramaic? Normally, vowels revert to a more ancient arrangement when words appear in pause.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
www.thehebrewcafe.com
Nihil est peius iis, qui paulum aliquid ultra primas litteras
progressi falsam sibi scientiæ persusionem induerunt.

— Quintilian
Isaac Fried
Posts: 1776
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: On the subject of accuracy of the masoretic vowel tradition. May be of interesting to kwrandolph

Post by Isaac Fried »

Jason writes
"For some reason" isn't very systematic. The reasons have been laid out in all grammars of the language. It's not just some random unknown reason.
The begedkefet distribution is random. In Gen. 2:3 we read שָׁבַת shavat, but in Ex. 16:25 we read שַׁבָּת shabat.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1195
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: On the subject of accuracy of the masoretic vowel tradition. May be of interesting to kwrandolph

Post by Jason Hare »

Isaac Fried wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 2:56 pm The begedkefet distribution is random. In Gen. 2:3 we read שָׁבַת shavat, but in Ex. 16:25 we read שַׁבָּת shabat.
That isn't random at all. The dagesh in שַׁבָּת šabbāṯ is dagesh forte (דגש חזק). It is part of the noun pattern (like גַּנָּן gannān and קַשָּׁת qaššāṯ). There's nothing random about it. The pattern here is CaCCāC (where C is a consonant, a is pataḥ, and ā is kamats). By this right, the same pattern is filled by words like רַקְדָּן raqdān, in which the two internal consonants (CC) are not the same letter.

If someone doesn't operate from the assumption that there is no such thing as dagesh forte and dagesh lene, the entire system is clear and sensible. It isn't "random" by any stretch of the imagination.

You cannot really think that שָׁבַת "he rested" (a verbal pattern) is the same as שַׁבָּת "(day of) rest" (a noun pattern). You cannot read these two words and think they are the same word with any seriousness. The dagesh is clearly part of the noun.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
www.thehebrewcafe.com
Nihil est peius iis, qui paulum aliquid ultra primas litteras
progressi falsam sibi scientiæ persusionem induerunt.

— Quintilian
Isaac Fried
Posts: 1776
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: On the subject of accuracy of the masoretic vowel tradition. May be of interesting to kwrandolph

Post by Isaac Fried »

Jason writes,
The dagesh is clearly part of the noun
There is no such thing as a dagesh being "clearly part of the noun". Whatever is in the noun is "clearly part of the noun".

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com
Post Reply