YHWH Pronunciation
53 views
Skip to first unread message
Yaaqov Ben Yisrael
Jan 21, 2012, 11:03:49 PM1/21/12
to parshanut...@googlegroups.com
Shalom Chaverim,
I have laboured tirelessly for many years on this subject. I have spoken to a plethora of Hebraists in an attempt to solve this age old riddle. Many of these Grammarians simply lack the dedication to the subject of study; some have even printed books based upon their "contrived" pronunciation, one most recent of which in reality is based upon fancy, and a probable scribal error in the vocalization of the Aleppo Codex; the sad thing is it is being promoted, and hailed by a non-Hebrew speaking group, and their ignorance on the subject makes for great sales of this book. My speaking to the authors have not been fruitful, as they disregard Hebrew grammar, for what they call a seemingly prophetical revelation lol.
In the latest of my studies I have looked at the Lamed prefix in Aramaic. This Lamed prefix was invented specifically for use in the 3rd imperfect of HWH. To prove it was invented for this purpose is relatively easy, as it appears no earlier than the Rabbinic Aramaic period, specifically appearing in the MT's portions in Aramaic. From this point onward, it is used, and even more extensively the later the date.
I believe there is no doubt that the scribes of the MT upheld the Rabbinic ban upon the pronunciation of YHWH, and that the present vowels of the Text are vowels transposed from Adonai and Elohim respectively, and these vowels follow a predictable pattern in their nearness to either Adonai or Elohim. Seeing then that these scribes intended to prevent the vocalization of YHWH, they created a problem in the Aramaic portions.
The verb HWH is not Hebrew, but Aramaic. The Hebrew equivalent is HYH, and HYH is not used in the Aramaic of Tenach, and is only used later, specifically in the Rabbinic Aramaic. YHWH is from the HWH root and places it as an Aramaic verb. In the Hebrew portions of Tenakh, the 3rd imperfect of HWH is only used for YHWH, except in Ecc 11:3, and there is written in an Aramaic form, and is considered an apocopation. However, the 3rd imperfect of HWH is used in the Aramaic portions of Tenakh, but with this one irregular exception, the Lamed prefix.
In the Aramaic, HYH is not used, but rather the Aramaic HWH. In those places we can see clearly the 2nd imperfect is written witht he Taw prefix, and is normal. However, the 3rd imperfect is written not with the Yod prefix, as with any other 3rd imperfect verb, but rather with the Lamed prefix, hence you have לֶהֱוֵ֖א as in Dan 2:28-29.
I asked myself, why was this the case. It then occurred to me, that in the Aramaic, HYH was not used, at least not in this early time. So the scribes invented the Lamed prefix to prevent any possibility of pronouncing the Name with the proper pronunciation, so the reader would say Lehewei and not Yehewei. They could not utilize the vowels of Adonai nor Elohim in the Aramaic portions as these verbs were normal verbs, and not the Name; yet the vocalization would have been the same. The Lamed prefix seems to have been a viable substitution.
I would like your thoughts and opinions.
--
יִשָּׂ֨א יְהוָ֤ה׀ פָּנָיו֙ אֵלֶ֔יךָ וְיָשֵׂ֥ם לְךָ֖ שָׁלֹֽום
May YHWH Lift His Countenance To You and Grant You Shalom, Amein!
שָׁלוֹם וּבְרָכָה
Shalom U'vrakhah
חָכָם יַעֲקֹב בֶּן יִשְׂרָאֵל
Ya'aqov ben Yisrael
Гахам Яаков бен Исраэль
המועצה הדתית המרכזית לקראימלר
THE CENTRAL SPIRITUAL BOARD OF QARA'IMLER
ЦЕНТРАЛЬНОЕ ДУХОВНОЕ ПРАВЛЕНИЕ КАРАИМЛЕP
חבר ב׃
האיגוד העולמי של הקראים
World Alliance of Qara'im
Zvi
Jan 22, 2012, 2:49:35 AM1/22/12
to Parshanut HaTorah (פַּרְשָׁנוּת הַתּוֹרָה)
Shalom Ya`aqov!
1) "In the Hebrew portions of Tenakh, the 3rd imperfect
11:3 is Hebrew despite the Aramaic form? I'm asking mainly because you
stated later on that "in the Aramaic, HYH was not used, at least not
when the Pharisaic movement "transformed" into the Rabbinic movement,
or in 198 BCE when the Pharisees came on the scene. *
* My understanding is that the Book of Daniyel, which contained an
early Second Temple stratum and a late Second Temple stratum, was
authored in the form that came down to us anywhere from 200 BCE to 160
BCE, but was definitely finalized after Dec 164 BCE. *
* Assuming you're correct on the 2nd date (AD 70) -- and I don't mean
offense stating this is a small leap of faith on my part -- I'm
concerned you're depending on the currently available body of written
material from antiquity and that a future discovery will factually
upset your assertion. In other words, your proof is far from airtight.
Your basing yourself on a supposed fact which is actually conjecture.
Specifically, what if the Rabbinic Aramaic period began in 198 BCE and
written evidence will surface??? *
3) "The verb HWH is not Hebrew, but Aramaic. The Hebrew equivalent is
"defective" orthographic form) in present tense and "Yeheweh" in
future tense aren't native to Hebrew but an undisputed borrowing from
Aramaic that got fully naturalized in Hebrew? Is this the case?
4) "However, the 3rd imperfect is written not with the Yod prefix, as
imperfect of the root ה.ו.ה in royal Aramaic (which the Tanakh uses)
is "יהוא" voweled with a Segol under the Lamed, a Hataf Segol under
the Heh, and a Tzerei under the Waw, and the word was spelled "יהוא"
would sound "Yehewei" before it was tampered with by some Masoretes
after the Talmud was published circa AD 500 in the early Middle Ages.
Is this the correct understanding? *
* Also, let's make sure we're on the same page chronologically. You
agree that "this early time" is up to 160 BCE and not afterwards? *
Are you sure the Name's pronunciation would've necessarily been
voweled with a Tzerei under the Waw rather than a Segol underneath it?
In other words, "Yehewei" rather than "Yeheweh"?
Finally, in my attempts to ascertain my comprehension of your
arguments I learned from translations to Hebrew that the word לֶהֱוֵ֖א
means "יהיה" -- "it/he will be" -- rather than Elohim or His Name
itself. Maybe I'm being too incredulous,- why would some Masoretes go
to such trouble to conceal the Name's pronunciation in a 3rd imperfect
form of a verb used for innocent purposes?
After any necessary modifications you make for your thesis and the
conclusions flowing from it, when will you publish an article in "peer-
reveiwed" linguistic journals of the first order internationally? You
have the potential to get more audience and promotion of your main
argument by competent Hebraists worldwide than NG has gotten for his
article on the Name's pronunciation.
After the dust settles in this forum and the discussion here dies out,
I believe you should take steps to ensure your theory gets proved by
honest Hebraists and doesn't remain within the confines of the English
speaking Qaraite arena.
Bivrakha,
Zvi
On Jan 22, 6:03 am, Yaaqov Ben Yisrael <yaaqovbenyisr...@gmail.com>
wrote:
1) "In the Hebrew portions of Tenakh, the 3rd imperfect
of HWH is only used for YHWH, except in Ecc 11:3, and there is written
in an Aramaic form, and is considered an apocopation. However, the 3rd
imperfect of HWH is used in the Aramaic portions of Tenakh, but with
this one irregular exception, the Lamed prefix. "
You meant "However, the 3rd imperfect of HWH is used in the *Hebrew*
in an Aramaic form, and is considered an apocopation. However, the 3rd
imperfect of HWH is used in the Aramaic portions of Tenakh, but with
this one irregular exception, the Lamed prefix. "
portions of Tenakh, but with this one irregular exception, the Lamed
prefix. "
Moreover, does "apocopation" still mean this 3rd imperfect in Qohelet
prefix. "
11:3 is Hebrew despite the Aramaic form? I'm asking mainly because you
stated later on that "in the Aramaic, HYH was not used, at least not
in this early time".
2) "This Lamed prefix was invented specifically for use in the 3rd
imperfect of HWH. To prove it was invented for this purpose is
relatively easy, as it appears no earlier than the Rabbinic Aramaic
period, specifically appearing in the MT's portions in Aramaic."
* The *Rabbinic* period in "Jewish" Aramaic begins either in AD 70
relatively easy, as it appears no earlier than the Rabbinic Aramaic
period, specifically appearing in the MT's portions in Aramaic."
when the Pharisaic movement "transformed" into the Rabbinic movement,
or in 198 BCE when the Pharisees came on the scene. *
* My understanding is that the Book of Daniyel, which contained an
early Second Temple stratum and a late Second Temple stratum, was
authored in the form that came down to us anywhere from 200 BCE to 160
BCE, but was definitely finalized after Dec 164 BCE. *
* Assuming you're correct on the 2nd date (AD 70) -- and I don't mean
offense stating this is a small leap of faith on my part -- I'm
concerned you're depending on the currently available body of written
material from antiquity and that a future discovery will factually
upset your assertion. In other words, your proof is far from airtight.
Your basing yourself on a supposed fact which is actually conjecture.
Specifically, what if the Rabbinic Aramaic period began in 198 BCE and
written evidence will surface??? *
3) "The verb HWH is not Hebrew, but Aramaic. The Hebrew equivalent is
HYH, and HYH is not used in the Aramaic of Tenach, and is only used
later, specifically in the Rabbinic Aramaic."
Ergo the forms of the verb known as "Howeh" (הווה or הוה in
later, specifically in the Rabbinic Aramaic."
"defective" orthographic form) in present tense and "Yeheweh" in
future tense aren't native to Hebrew but an undisputed borrowing from
Aramaic that got fully naturalized in Hebrew? Is this the case?
4) "However, the 3rd imperfect is written not with the Yod prefix, as
with any other 3rd imperfect verb, but rather with the Lamed
prefix, hence you have לֶהֱוֵ֖א as in Dan 2:28-29.
I asked myself, why was this the case. It then occurred to me, that in
the Aramaic, HYH was not used, at least not in this early time. So the
scribes invented the Lamed prefix to prevent any possibility of
pronouncing the Name with the proper pronunciation, so the reader
would say Lehewei and not Yehewei. They could not utilize the vowels
of Adonai nor Elohim in the Aramaic portions as these verbs were
normal verbs, and not the Name; yet the vocalization would have been
the same. The Lamed prefix seems to have been a viable substitution."
* In other words, if I construe this, the proper spelling of the 3rd
prefix, hence you have לֶהֱוֵ֖א as in Dan 2:28-29.
I asked myself, why was this the case. It then occurred to me, that in
the Aramaic, HYH was not used, at least not in this early time. So the
scribes invented the Lamed prefix to prevent any possibility of
pronouncing the Name with the proper pronunciation, so the reader
would say Lehewei and not Yehewei. They could not utilize the vowels
of Adonai nor Elohim in the Aramaic portions as these verbs were
normal verbs, and not the Name; yet the vocalization would have been
the same. The Lamed prefix seems to have been a viable substitution."
imperfect of the root ה.ו.ה in royal Aramaic (which the Tanakh uses)
is "יהוא" voweled with a Segol under the Lamed, a Hataf Segol under
the Heh, and a Tzerei under the Waw, and the word was spelled "יהוא"
would sound "Yehewei" before it was tampered with by some Masoretes
after the Talmud was published circa AD 500 in the early Middle Ages.
Is this the correct understanding? *
* Also, let's make sure we're on the same page chronologically. You
agree that "this early time" is up to 160 BCE and not afterwards? *
Are you sure the Name's pronunciation would've necessarily been
voweled with a Tzerei under the Waw rather than a Segol underneath it?
In other words, "Yehewei" rather than "Yeheweh"?
Finally, in my attempts to ascertain my comprehension of your
arguments I learned from translations to Hebrew that the word לֶהֱוֵ֖א
means "יהיה" -- "it/he will be" -- rather than Elohim or His Name
itself. Maybe I'm being too incredulous,- why would some Masoretes go
to such trouble to conceal the Name's pronunciation in a 3rd imperfect
form of a verb used for innocent purposes?
After any necessary modifications you make for your thesis and the
conclusions flowing from it, when will you publish an article in "peer-
reveiwed" linguistic journals of the first order internationally? You
have the potential to get more audience and promotion of your main
argument by competent Hebraists worldwide than NG has gotten for his
article on the Name's pronunciation.
After the dust settles in this forum and the discussion here dies out,
I believe you should take steps to ensure your theory gets proved by
honest Hebraists and doesn't remain within the confines of the English
speaking Qaraite arena.
Bivrakha,
Zvi
On Jan 22, 6:03 am, Yaaqov Ben Yisrael <yaaqovbenyisr...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Yaaqov Ben Yisrael
Feb 19, 2012, 10:55:50 PM2/19/12
to Parshanut HaTorah (פַּרְשָׁנוּת הַתּוֹרָה)
Shalom Dear Zvi,
I am going to answer your questions to the best of my understanding
of them. I apologize for the great delay in writing a response.
> You meant "However, the 3rd imperfect of HWH is used in the *Hebrew*
> portions of Tenakh, but with this one irregular exception, the Lamed
> prefix. "
> Moreover, does "apocopation" still mean this 3rd imperfect in Qohelet
> 11:3 is Hebrew despite the Aramaic form? I'm asking mainly because you
> stated later on that "in the Aramaic, HYH was not used, at least not
> in this early time".
Yes this is what I meant. HYH was not used in Aramaic, and is not an
Aramaic word to my knowledge.
> * The *Rabbinic* period in "Jewish" Aramaic begins either in AD 70
> when the Pharisaic movement "transformed" into the Rabbinic movement,
> or in 198 BCE when the Pharisees came on the scene. *
> * My understanding is that the Book of Daniyel, which contained an
> early Second Temple stratum and a late Second Temple stratum, was
> authored in the form that came down to us anywhere from 200 BCE to 160
> BCE, but was definitely finalized after Dec 164 BCE. *
> * Assuming you're correct on the 2nd date (AD 70) -- and I don't mean
> offense stating this is a small leap of faith on my part -- I'm
> concerned you're depending on the currently available body of written
> material from antiquity and that a future discovery will factually
> upset your assertion. In other words, your proof is far from airtight.
> Your basing yourself on a supposed fact which is actually conjecture.
> Specifically, what if the Rabbinic Aramaic period began in 198 BCE and
> written evidence will surface??? *
You are correct, we only have what is later editions. If an earlier
source arises, I may be proven wrong.
> Ergo the forms of the verb known as "Howeh" (הווה or הוה in
> "defective" orthographic form) in present tense and "Yeheweh" in
> future tense aren't native to Hebrew but an undisputed borrowing from
> Aramaic that got fully naturalized in Hebrew? Is this the case?
Yes it is a loanword from Aramaic, which incidentally has become
conjugated/declined according to Hebrew orthography, similar to other
loanwords such as those of the Assyrian/Chaldee etc.
> * In other words, if I construe this, the proper spelling of the 3rd
> imperfect of the root ה.ו.ה in royal Aramaic (which the Tanakh uses)
> is "יהוא" voweled with a Segol under the Lamed, a Hataf Segol under
> the Heh, and a Tzerei under the Waw, and the word was spelled "יהוא"
> would sound "Yehewei" before it was tampered with by some Masoretes
> after the Talmud was published circa AD 500 in the early Middle Ages.
> Is this the correct understanding? *
> * Also, let's make sure we're on the same page chronologically. You
> agree that "this early time" is up to 160 BCE and not afterwards? *
>
> Are you sure the Name's pronunciation would've necessarily been
> voweled with a Tzerei under the Waw rather than a Segol underneath it?
> In other words, "Yehewei" rather than "Yeheweh"?
Yes to about 160 BCE. How the vowels actually worked is a guess, as
they were invented by the later Masoretes, or some other scribe such
as them. Therefore, they invented signs which would have represented
the sound of the vowels in these conjugations/declinsions. It is the
Masoretic voweling which we are dealing with, since it is this
voweling which is used today to provide pronunciaion to the Hebrew
language.
> Finally, in my attempts to ascertain my comprehension of your
> arguments I learned from translations to Hebrew that the word לֶהֱוֵ֖א
> means "יהיה" -- "it/he will be" -- rather than Elohim or His Name
> itself. Maybe I'm being too incredulous,- why would some Masoretes go
> to such trouble to conceal the Name's pronunciation in a 3rd imperfect
> form of a verb used for innocent purposes?
No, it is not the Name. However, I am contending that the Name is
actually the 3rd imperfect of HWH in Aramaic, and hence they had to
change the pronunciation, as the verb is His Name. This was the only
aim of the Masoretes in this situation. This is also why YHWH as the
Name does not appear in any Aramaic passage of Tenakh, and why I also
contend that the YHWH of the Hebrew section is pronounced similarly to
the Aramaic form, yet in the Hebrew Text, the Masoretes could simply
change the voweling under the Name. In the Aramaic portions they could
not, as the verb HWH was the only Aramaic option for them, HYH is not
Aramaic. This means they were forced by linguistics to use the HWH
imperfect, and for this reason they had to invent the Lamed prefix to
replace the natural "yod" and this is why, the Lamed prefix only
occurs on the 3rd imperfect of HWH. If you could provide any other
reasoning for this Lamed prefix, I would be really greatful to know
it.
> After any necessary modifications you make for your thesis and the
> conclusions flowing from it, when will you publish an article in "peer-
> reveiwed" linguistic journals of the first order internationally? You
> have the potential to get more audience and promotion of your main
> argument by competent Hebraists worldwide than NG has gotten for his
> article on the Name's pronunciation.
> After the dust settles in this forum and the discussion here dies out,
> I believe you should take steps to ensure your theory gets proved by
> honest Hebraists and doesn't remain within the confines of the English
> speaking Qaraite arena.
>
I am planning on doing this, however, I would like to hash it out at
least among those I know who knows Hebrew grammar among my friends,
before I venture into a purely academic setting and be made a fool. I
do have a sensitive ego after all.
Yaaqov ben Yisrael
Lexington, SC
I am going to answer your questions to the best of my understanding
of them. I apologize for the great delay in writing a response.
> You meant "However, the 3rd imperfect of HWH is used in the *Hebrew*
> portions of Tenakh, but with this one irregular exception, the Lamed
> prefix. "
> Moreover, does "apocopation" still mean this 3rd imperfect in Qohelet
> 11:3 is Hebrew despite the Aramaic form? I'm asking mainly because you
> stated later on that "in the Aramaic, HYH was not used, at least not
> in this early time".
Aramaic word to my knowledge.
> * The *Rabbinic* period in "Jewish" Aramaic begins either in AD 70
> when the Pharisaic movement "transformed" into the Rabbinic movement,
> or in 198 BCE when the Pharisees came on the scene. *
> * My understanding is that the Book of Daniyel, which contained an
> early Second Temple stratum and a late Second Temple stratum, was
> authored in the form that came down to us anywhere from 200 BCE to 160
> BCE, but was definitely finalized after Dec 164 BCE. *
> * Assuming you're correct on the 2nd date (AD 70) -- and I don't mean
> offense stating this is a small leap of faith on my part -- I'm
> concerned you're depending on the currently available body of written
> material from antiquity and that a future discovery will factually
> upset your assertion. In other words, your proof is far from airtight.
> Your basing yourself on a supposed fact which is actually conjecture.
> Specifically, what if the Rabbinic Aramaic period began in 198 BCE and
> written evidence will surface??? *
source arises, I may be proven wrong.
> Ergo the forms of the verb known as "Howeh" (הווה or הוה in
> "defective" orthographic form) in present tense and "Yeheweh" in
> future tense aren't native to Hebrew but an undisputed borrowing from
> Aramaic that got fully naturalized in Hebrew? Is this the case?
conjugated/declined according to Hebrew orthography, similar to other
loanwords such as those of the Assyrian/Chaldee etc.
> * In other words, if I construe this, the proper spelling of the 3rd
> imperfect of the root ה.ו.ה in royal Aramaic (which the Tanakh uses)
> is "יהוא" voweled with a Segol under the Lamed, a Hataf Segol under
> the Heh, and a Tzerei under the Waw, and the word was spelled "יהוא"
> would sound "Yehewei" before it was tampered with by some Masoretes
> after the Talmud was published circa AD 500 in the early Middle Ages.
> Is this the correct understanding? *
> * Also, let's make sure we're on the same page chronologically. You
> agree that "this early time" is up to 160 BCE and not afterwards? *
>
> Are you sure the Name's pronunciation would've necessarily been
> voweled with a Tzerei under the Waw rather than a Segol underneath it?
> In other words, "Yehewei" rather than "Yeheweh"?
they were invented by the later Masoretes, or some other scribe such
as them. Therefore, they invented signs which would have represented
the sound of the vowels in these conjugations/declinsions. It is the
Masoretic voweling which we are dealing with, since it is this
voweling which is used today to provide pronunciaion to the Hebrew
language.
> Finally, in my attempts to ascertain my comprehension of your
> arguments I learned from translations to Hebrew that the word לֶהֱוֵ֖א
> means "יהיה" -- "it/he will be" -- rather than Elohim or His Name
> itself. Maybe I'm being too incredulous,- why would some Masoretes go
> to such trouble to conceal the Name's pronunciation in a 3rd imperfect
> form of a verb used for innocent purposes?
actually the 3rd imperfect of HWH in Aramaic, and hence they had to
change the pronunciation, as the verb is His Name. This was the only
aim of the Masoretes in this situation. This is also why YHWH as the
Name does not appear in any Aramaic passage of Tenakh, and why I also
contend that the YHWH of the Hebrew section is pronounced similarly to
the Aramaic form, yet in the Hebrew Text, the Masoretes could simply
change the voweling under the Name. In the Aramaic portions they could
not, as the verb HWH was the only Aramaic option for them, HYH is not
Aramaic. This means they were forced by linguistics to use the HWH
imperfect, and for this reason they had to invent the Lamed prefix to
replace the natural "yod" and this is why, the Lamed prefix only
occurs on the 3rd imperfect of HWH. If you could provide any other
reasoning for this Lamed prefix, I would be really greatful to know
it.
> After any necessary modifications you make for your thesis and the
> conclusions flowing from it, when will you publish an article in "peer-
> reveiwed" linguistic journals of the first order internationally? You
> have the potential to get more audience and promotion of your main
> argument by competent Hebraists worldwide than NG has gotten for his
> article on the Name's pronunciation.
> After the dust settles in this forum and the discussion here dies out,
> I believe you should take steps to ensure your theory gets proved by
> honest Hebraists and doesn't remain within the confines of the English
> speaking Qaraite arena.
>
least among those I know who knows Hebrew grammar among my friends,
before I venture into a purely academic setting and be made a fool. I
do have a sensitive ego after all.
Yaaqov ben Yisrael
Lexington, SC
Zvi
Feb 20, 2012, 11:14:00 AM2/20/12
to Parshanut HaTorah (פַּרְשָׁנוּת הַתּוֹרָה)
Shalom `alaikha Ya`aqov!
Ya`aqov Walker wrote a short while ago:
"Karaites historically have seen YHWH as either the
"imperfect" ("future") or "causative" tense of of the root Hawah (to
be/exist).
"Thus, Yihweh (He shall be/exist) or Yahweh (He shall cause to exist).
I prefer the latter, based on:
"כִּי הוּא אָמַר וַיֶּהִי; הוּא-צִוָּה, וַיַּעֲמֹד Ki hu amar, weYehi;
Hu tsiwwah, weYa`amod "For He said, and it came into being; He
commanded, and it stood" Tehillim 33:9
"Thus, even if it's not the original pronunciation, it also serves as
a title:
"He will cause existence"
"Which is why in Karaite commentaries, multiple views were tolerated,
since these pronunciations both exalt Him as Eternal (Yihweh) or
Creator (Yahweh/Yehaweh)."
==========================================
I proceeded to point out to him that "Yahaweh" would be the only
grammatically possible pronunciation if he's correct in opting for the
latter, because of the Hataf Patah which renders it 3 syllables in
pronunciation.
Your comments or thought?
May Yehaweh bless us,
Zvi
On Feb 20, 5:55 am, Yaaqov Ben Yisrael <yaaqovbenyisr...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Ya`aqov Walker wrote a short while ago:
"Karaites historically have seen YHWH as either the
"imperfect" ("future") or "causative" tense of of the root Hawah (to
be/exist).
"Thus, Yihweh (He shall be/exist) or Yahweh (He shall cause to exist).
I prefer the latter, based on:
"כִּי הוּא אָמַר וַיֶּהִי; הוּא-צִוָּה, וַיַּעֲמֹד Ki hu amar, weYehi;
Hu tsiwwah, weYa`amod "For He said, and it came into being; He
commanded, and it stood" Tehillim 33:9
"Thus, even if it's not the original pronunciation, it also serves as
a title:
"He will cause existence"
"Which is why in Karaite commentaries, multiple views were tolerated,
since these pronunciations both exalt Him as Eternal (Yihweh) or
Creator (Yahweh/Yehaweh)."
==========================================
I proceeded to point out to him that "Yahaweh" would be the only
grammatically possible pronunciation if he's correct in opting for the
latter, because of the Hataf Patah which renders it 3 syllables in
pronunciation.
Your comments or thought?
May Yehaweh bless us,
Zvi
On Feb 20, 5:55 am, Yaaqov Ben Yisrael <yaaqovbenyisr...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Yaaqov Ben Yisrael
Feb 20, 2012, 1:45:33 PM2/20/12
to parshanut...@googlegroups.com
Shalom Zvi,
וַיֶּ֑הִי is actually the pa'al 3rd imperfect of היה with waw consecutive, and not of הוה which is why there it is spelled with the seghol on the yod, and also the seghol He is dropped. If it were actually of הוה the conjugation would then be either וַיֶּהֱוֶה in the 3rd imperfect singular or וַיֶּהֱווּ in the 3rd imperfect plural.
Yaaqov
2012/2/20 Zvi <zvi.tor...@gmail.com>
--
Zvi
Feb 21, 2012, 8:48:01 AM2/21/12
to Parshanut HaTorah (פַּרְשָׁנוּת הַתּוֹרָה)
Shalom Ya`aqov...
But I was referring to the word וַיַּעֲמֹד instead of וַיֶּ֑הִי
-Zvi
On Feb 20, 8:45 pm, Yaaqov Ben Yisrael <yaaqovbenyisr...@gmail.com>
wrote:
But I was referring to the word וַיַּעֲמֹד instead of וַיֶּ֑הִי
-Zvi
On Feb 20, 8:45 pm, Yaaqov Ben Yisrael <yaaqovbenyisr...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Shalom Zvi,
>
> וַיֶּ֑הִי is actually the pa'al 3rd imperfect of היה with waw consecutive,
> and not of הוה which is why there it is spelled with the seghol on the yod,
> and also the seghol He is dropped. If it were actually of הוה the
> conjugation would then be either וַיֶּהֱוֶה in the 3rd imperfect singular
> or וַיֶּהֱווּ in the 3rd imperfect plural.
>
> Yaaqov
>
> 2012/2/20 Zvi <zvi.torahkee...@gmail.com>
>
> וַיֶּ֑הִי is actually the pa'al 3rd imperfect of היה with waw consecutive,
> and not of הוה which is why there it is spelled with the seghol on the yod,
> and also the seghol He is dropped. If it were actually of הוה the
> conjugation would then be either וַיֶּהֱוֶה in the 3rd imperfect singular
> or וַיֶּהֱווּ in the 3rd imperfect plural.
>
> Yaaqov
>
Yaaqov Ben Yisrael
Feb 26, 2012, 8:25:01 AM2/26/12
to Parshanut HaTorah (פַּרְשָׁנוּת הַתּוֹרָה)
The rule to I-Gutturals states that pa'al imperfect verbs which end in
a Holem, begin with a pathach or qamets, while I-Gutturals which end
in a pathach begin with a seghol (Introduction to Biblical Hebrew,
Kennedy, page 146; Gesenius Hebrew Grammar, section 62-65); יַעֲמֹד
follows this rule, however this isnt the case for HaWaH. According to
Gesenius and Kennedy, all Pe-Aspirants/Lamed-He verbs will also begin
with seghol. This is why, even though Gesenius suggests the YaHWeH
pronunciation, mainly due to the Greek witnesses, he admits the actual
conjugation of HWH in the imperfect is naturally YeHeWeH (Gesenius'
Hebrew Lexicon page 247).
Yaaqov ben Yisrael
Lexington, SC
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yaaqov Ben Yisrael
Feb 26, 2012, 8:46:18 AM2/26/12
to parshanut...@googlegroups.com
2012/2/21 Zvi <zvi.tor...@gmail.com>
--
יִשָּׂ֨א יְהוָ֤ה׀ פָּנָיו֙ אֵלֶ֔יךָ וְיָשֵׂ֥ם לְךָ֖ שָׁלֹֽום
May YHWH Lift His Countenance To You and Grant You Shalom, Amein!
שָׁלוֹם וּבְרָכָה
Shalom U'vrakhah
חָכָם יַעֲקֹב בֶּן יִשְׂרָאֵל
Ya'aqov ben Yisrael
0 new messages