Sun Jan 19 18:10:07 1997

From owner-tc-list  Sun Jan 19 18:10:07 1997
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id SAA29187; Sun, 19 Jan 1997 18:07:47 -0500
Message-ID: <32E2B632.4D22@online.no>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 00:03:58 +0000
From: Rolf Furuli 
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Macintosh; I; PPC)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: RE: Massorets and pointing
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 1145

The pointing of the Massoretes are generally believed to be reliable -
they followed closely what they heard in the synagogue. But is this true
also for shewa and patah? Some writers claim that shewa often was
pronounced by an a-sound. 

If this is true, the very existence of the consecutive forms is
threatened. The differences between consecutive forms and I. and P.
proper are the position of the accent and patah versus shewa.There is no
orthographic difference between imperfect and perfect proper and
consecutive I. and P., except that consecutive I. often is apocopated. 

This means that in unpointed manuscripts there is no difference between
the consecutive forms and I. and P proper. And neither is there any
difference in the Hexapla.
So there is the possibility, which I think is quite likely,that the
consecutive forms do not exist as separate semantic entities, but simply
are innovations of the Massoretes.

(1) Does anybody have any views or data on patah/shewa and the
Massoretes?
(2) Are there any errors due to dictation at Qumran or elsewhere
throwing light on the pronunciation of enclitic waw of verbs?

Rolf Furuli
Oslo

Back