VadimCherny at mail.ru
Wed Mar 15 03:02:05 EST 2006
Shtaim means not "two," but "pair." The word was originally used in
constructus, such as "pair of smth," not stand-alone word. Constructus
(smihuth) moves accent, and reduces the first word (davar - d'var-melech).
Similarly, shataim was reduced in constructus to shtaim. Thus schwa in shin.
The origin of dagesh is ambiguous. Dagesh in shtaim could be either kal or
Could the dagesh in shtaim be kal? The form dvash argues against kal. Dvash
is a constructus form, like shtaim, but has no dagesh.
Dagesh in shtaim is likely hazak which occurs in piel and haial. Using piel
in constructus is highly irregular. The word could be haial. Hebrew has two
types of initial-stress-derived nouns: haial (dabbar) and segholate. Haial
adds post-tonic gemination, and thus preserves post-tonic vowel; segholates
do not geminate (gemination was already used in haial), and lost the
post-tonic vowel (cAlabh - cal'bh - calb). That is my opinion, at least.
Dagesh could also occur from ayn-ayn root (sh-t-t). I doubted similar issue
of ammon in another discussion.
The last paragraph on nizcar was a reply to Joel.
> could you clarify the following points:
-what is a haial?
-what do you mean by the smihuth and shtayim/shtey-issue?
-what do you mean by your last paragraph (with 'nizcar' etc.)?
Excuse me, I just lost you there.
2006/3/13, Vadim Cherny <VadimCherny at mail.ru>:
> > >I would like to ask the interested members' opinion on the origin of
> > >the word ???? shtayim.
> > >Remarkably, this word has a shwa with the shin, but a dagesh in the
> > >A so-called shwa na` (mobile) is supposed not to be followed by a
> > >sharp begedkepet consonant sign:
> That is merely imprecise mnemonic rule.
> Shtaim was originally used in smihuth, thus accent shift and consequential
> reduction to shtei, normalized as shtaim. As for the dagesh, it indicates
> the original form of piel or haial. Haial seems more plausible for me.
> In other words, shtaim is a haial noun (or piel verb) commonly used in
> > But once you come to the realization that a shwa represents the lack
> > of a vowel --- no more, no less --- everything because eaiser and more
> > sensible.
> What vowel is lacked in nizcar? Interconsonantal schwa represents not a
> vowel but consonantal vocalization, important in chanting to break the
> clusters (ne-z'-car). Indeed, I argue that all Hebrew words originate from
> CV, thus zacer - nzacer - nezcar, but that loss of the vowel took place
> before the Masoretes added interconsonantal schwa, which represents not a
> vowel, but vocalization.
> Vadim Cherny
More information about the b-hebrew