Hebrew translation of "Desolation" in Daniel 9:27

Meeshell Biblestudy said:

In LOGOS

In what specific resource?

That character that you're saying is a nun is actually a vav or waw, depending on pronunciation you're following. And it appears to be a holem-waw or holem-vav. Which is when the vav is acting as an "o" type sound. It's not a nun. I say this because seeing that it's in the middle of the word there would be a small ledge at the bottom of the nun. In the final form the nun would look similar to the vav, but would actually extend below the line.

Phil Quigley said:

Quickly scanning Google, it appears that both Qal participle spellings--with the holam vav and without--appear in Biblical texts; however, always have the holam vav in Modern Hebrew. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holam) I wonder if that's the difference. You'd have to look at all the manuscript evidence for this particular text. Also participles are verbal adjectives (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participle), so it could be "desolating one" or "desolator." "Desolation" would also potentially be within the semantic range. I haven't studied this particular verse in depth. It's an interpretive decision as to what is being emphasized.

Generally speaking, there isn't any fundamental semantic change elicited by the presence or absence of "mothers of learning". When they are present, it is said the spelling is "full"; when they are absent, the spelling is called "defective" (a term I don't like, since in theory the language originated without the "mothers of learning"). Whether full or defective, the pronunciation of O-vowels is the same (long) and the meaning is not changed. [There may be some prophetic significance to MoLs, but up to now I haven't identified anything significant or persistent to that effect].

Generally speaking, MoLs increased in usage in the Bible after the exile, particularly in proper names. My name, David, for instance, changed from mostly defective in Samuel and Kings to being full in Chronicles.

Early (defective): Daawidh [ D W D ]  --  Late (full): Daawiydh [ D W Y D ]

In this case, the spelling does change the pronunciation, from Hebrew short-I  ("it") to Hebrew long-I ("eel").

It is the convention of Modern Hebrew to always spell words in full spelling w/ MoLs present, even in cases where certain words were historically only spelled defectively. There are some exceptions to this rule, particularly in Biblical and historical contexts.

I'm not sure what motivated Green to use the MoL (hhohlaam waaw) in his translation. I do know that vowels can change based on location within a sentence based on cantilation, but I'm not sure if that applies here (probably not). I haven't really studied cantillation much, so I'm not up to speed. It's on my to-do list, but it's not near the top. I do have a book that explains it...one of these days.

If by "it" you mean Green's rationale/reason for using a full spelling, I doubt it, but if you have access to it, it's worth a shot.

I just checked in The Masorah of BHS by Mynatt, Crawford, and Kelley, and Daniel is not referenced at all in the Scripture index.

I made a brief scan of Massorah Gedolah by Weil and found a few references to Dan. 9, but nothing for verse 27. That said, my French is weak and it's not the easiest book to peruse.