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

[ralph]

I'm aware that one guy here, Karl Randolph, thinks people should forget the vowels that the masoretic tradition places on the words!

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

This is this book The Development of the Biblical Hebrew Vowels: Including a Concise Historical Morphology
Book by Benjamin Suchard

I was looking through samples of it on google books to try to see if it had any info on the ancient pronunciation of the Patach, I haven't found that yet. But I did find this

[talmid56]

Thanks for this, Ralph. It seems Karl is dubious about the value of comparative Semitics, as well. I can see value in that approach, though it can lead you astray. As for the vowel points, I understand they are not always right. They are helpful if used with appropriate caution, though.

[Jason Hare]

Thanks for this, Ralph. It seems Karl is dubious about the value of comparative Semitics, as well. I can see value in that approach, though it can lead you astray. As for the vowel points, I understand they are not always right. They are helpful if used with appropriate caution, though.

Precisely my opinion. I don't think that the points are inspired, but the Masoretes were extremely well informed with regard to the transmission of the text. I trust the points most of the time.

[kwrandolph]

Ralph:

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

It was interesting, however the article has a couple of items to which I should answer:

It mentioned the Hexapla. Don’t forget, that was written some eight centuries after Biblical Hebrew ceased to be a natively spoken language. Only three to four centuries before the Masoretic points were invented.

While I have repeatedly said that the points were invented by the Masoretes, I have never said that the pronunciations recorded by those points were artificial. I have consistently said that the points preserve the medieval Hebrew pronunciations that the Masoretes knew. In this regard, the article does NOT reflect how I view the points.

The article mentions proto-semitic. That language is entirely an artificial, made up language. I view that as having less validity than the Masoretic points.

Thanks for this, Ralph. It seems Karl is dubious about the value of comparative Semitics, as well.

Yes I am, based on experience.

I can see value in that approach, though it can lead you astray.

That’s exactly why I take comparative linguistics with a grain of salt.

As for the vowel points, I understand they are not always right. They are helpful if used with appropriate caution, though.

Most of the text of Tanakh is simple, and easy to place the correct points (though quite often I notice Hophals pointed as Hiphils). For the simple text, the points end up being superfluous, clutter on the page. Because they are wrong often enough, they are not evidence for the original readings.

Precisely my opinion. I don't think that the points are inspired, but the Masoretes were extremely well informed with regard to the transmission of the text. I trust the points most of the time.

“…most of the time”

Karl W. Randolph.

[Isaac Fried]

Karl writes

Most of the text of Tanakh is simple, and easy to place the correct points (though quite often I notice Hophals pointed as Hiphils). For the simple text, the points end up being superfluous, clutter on the page. Because they are wrong often enough, they are not evidence for the original readings.

Yes, indeed, most of the text of the Tanakh is simple, after one has first read it many times over with niqud.
Also, it is "wrong" for them who profess to know what is "right". Unfortunately I have not seen yet not even one single example of a "corrected" niqud.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

[kwrandolph]

… Unfortunately I have not seen yet not even one single example of a "corrected" niqud.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

I haven’t read the niqud for over a decade, so I remember only one example (which I mentioned before). in Proverbs 1:19, the middle words are בצע בצע. The first is a participle, a noun indicating the action of taking a cut (of the loot), the second is a shegolate noun pointing to the object of the cut itself. I don’t remember the exact points that the Masoretes inserted, but I remember that they are not what I just mentioned.

The context as well as poetic style lead me to this conclusion.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Isaac Fried]

Proverbs 1:19
כֵּן אָרְחוֹת כָּל בֹּצֵעַ בָּצַע אֶת נֶפֶשׁ בְּעָלָיו יִקָּח
NIV: "Such are the paths of all who go after ill-gotten gain it takes away the life of those who get it"
KJV: "So are the ways of every one that is greedy of gain; which taketh away the life of the owners thereof"

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

[Jason Hare]

Proverbs 1:19
כֵּן אָרְחוֹת כָּל בֹּצֵעַ בָּצַע אֶת נֶפֶשׁ בְּעָלָיו יִקָּח
NIV: "Such are the paths of all who go after ill-gotten gain it takes away the life of those who get it"
KJV: "So are the ways of every one that is greedy of gain; which taketh away the life of the owners thereof"

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

What Isaac has provided here is precisely what Karl said: בֹּצֵעַ is a participle, and בָּ֫צַע is a segolate noun (בֶּ֫צַע in pause). I don't see the pointing problem or how this differs from what Karl said ("The first is a participle, a noun indicating the action of taking a cut (of the loot), the second is a shegolate noun pointing to the object of the cut itself."), except in stating that a participle itself is a noun (participles are verbal adjectives, and infinitives are verbal nouns—the participle here used substantivally to refer to the person doing the action, not to the action itself as a noun).

[Refael Shalev]

This is the main problem with Karl's point of view (to my opinion) there is a great difference between the person who doing an action and the action itself.
I don't know where 'poel' refers to the action and not the person.

[kwrandolph]

Over the years, I’ve noticed that participles in Biblical Hebrew either are gerunds, which are nouns referring to actions, or actors, again nouns. As such, neither are verbal.

Under Indo-European language influence, first from Persian, then Greek, then Latin, Hebrew grammar was changed, so that already by DSS Hebrew (not Bible copies) the language had largely an Indo-European grammar. How participles were treated in that new grammar, I don’t know. By medieval, Tiberian Hebrew, the basis of Gesenius and Weingreen, we no longer discuss Biblical Hebrew, but medieval Hebrew.

As for Proverbs 1:19, the verse contains two phrases, each with a subject, implied or stated verb, and object. The first phrase is כן ארחות כל-בצע with the subject and implied verb כן with the object ארחות כל-בצע with בצע being a participle indicating the actor. The second phrase is בצע את-נפש בעליו יקח where בצע is the subject of the phrase, an object, a shegolate noun. There is no reason for a pausal pointing of the subject of a phrase. Nor is בצע בצע a compound verb.

Karl W. Randolph,