[b-hebrew] Re : Re : hatuf patah under the lamed (LHBDYL) in Gen 1, 18 and Lev 10, 10

Isaac Fried if at math.bu.edu
Sat Mar 7 22:46:49 EST 2009


1. The name XATAP PATAX does not connote, methinks, a PATAX XATUP, a  
snatched or "short" PATAX, but rather the combination XATAP+PATAX,  
where XATAP is another word for schwa. It indicates a PATAX standing  
in place of a schwa, or an ambiguity.
2. Any claim as to how ancient Hebrew, or for that matter, "Tiberian  
Masoretic", sounded is imaginary, and any argument based on "short"  
and "long" vowels or consonants, or on a "vocal schwa", should be  
summarily dismissed as a deception.
3. The existence of an apparently redundant XATAP PATAX in an ancient  
text means that it is an old variant.
4. My school bible has  הַמֲלַקְקִים Jud 7:6,7 (not  
1Samuel as I had it erroneously before) with a schwa under the M.  
Obviously MA-MA-LAQQIYM is silly. My school bible has in Gen 2:12  
UZAHAB with a XATAP PATAX under the Z, which is so so, considering  
that the noun is ZAHAB. It has also a XATAP PATAX in Gen 21:6 under  
the C of YICAXAQ. I am tempted to use on it a drop of Tipp-Ex and set  
it aright.
5. There is no situation for which a rule can not be configured.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Mar 7, 2009, at 6:34 PM, Yitzhak Sapir wrote:

> Dear Laurent,
>
> Just because you encounter here ideas which seem to corroborate your
> own feelings, does not mean that your feelings are correct.   
> Sometimes,
> you and those whose opinions you read here are correct.
>
> It may be that both are you are wrong and are guided by the same
> mistaken assumptions.
>
> That is the case here.
>
> The hataf patah is present on all kinds of letters.  It is only  
> their common
> presence on gutturals that makes you think they should *only* be on
> gutturals.  But this is not the case.  Hataf means "short," and in  
> Masoretic
> literature it refers to all short vowels, even in closed  
> syllables.  On non-
> gutturals it is often marked to suggest the schewa should be vocal.
>
> Gen 1:18 has a hataf patah.  In case you thought it was a mistake in
> the Leningrad codex, Yaaqov Sapir (no known relation) of Jerusalem
> sent a letter to the rabbis of Aleppo asking to consult the Aleppo  
> codex
> regarding this word, asking if it was "meteg and schewa only", and the
> reply was "not so -- it has a hataf patah on the lamed."  For his  
> questions
> see here:
> http://www.aleppocodex.org/9.html#label14
> http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/vl/tohen.asp?id=278
> A similar word is Gen 2:12: [uu-zahav]
>
> Isaac lists different words with some hataf patah and some without,
> regarding double letters, including modern pronunciation.  But the
> modern pronunciation is not the Tiberian Masoretic pronunciation.
> One can't compare the two as they are two different systems.
> In the Tiberian system, long vowels followed by long consonants
> could create a situation where the long consonant would be
> shortened:
> Jonah 2:4,6 [ya,so:-va've:-ni:]
>
> In the above case, we have the sequence [so:vve:].  In this case,
> the long vowel (o:) and long consonant (v:) ended up in an overly
> long syllable (so:v), which is three morae.  This could lead to a
> situation where the consonant would be shortened - [so:ve:].
> To prevent this, the Masoretes pronounced the schewa in these
> cases (preceded by a long vowel and followed by an identical
> consonant) as vocal ([so:vave:]).  This was not necessary when
> the vowel was short [hinni:].  In such cases, there was no overly
> long syllable (hin is two morae), and so there was no need to
> make the schewa vocal in this case.
>
> In some of these cases where the schewa was vocal, the
> Masoretes marked the vocal schewa with a hatef patah, since
> that is all a hatef patah is - a short patah, and a schewa is
> a (generally) short vowel usually pronounced as patah.  So,
> the Horayat HaQore writes: "If one arguest that the dalet of
> Mordochai (and other letters in other words) has hatef
> qames tell him, 'but this is only a device used by some
> scribes to warn that the consonants should be pronounced
> fully, and not slurred over'.  Hatef qames is written in some
> texts.  It is not used in others, but the reader nevertheless
> pronounces the word in the same way when he comes to
> read it."
>
> In two cases listed by Isaac for a hatef schewa under a non
> guttural have a long vowel preceding it and an identical
> consonant following: Ex 15:10, and Gen 29:8.  We even know
> there was a hataf patah in the Aleppo codex because they
> were also questions of Yaaqov Sapir in the same list
> mentioned above.
>
> In the three other cases, there is a long vowel but no identical
> consonant.  These were also pronounced as vocal schewa's
> because they fit in one of the following categories:
> 1) under the kaf of )kl 'to eat' when the lamed has seghol
> 2) under the lamed of hlk 'to go' where the accent is
> retracted to the first syllable and the following word has
> conjunctive dagesh.
> 2a) Saadya Gaon identifies rule (2) as a specific case of a
> more general rule: when the vowel preceding the schewa
> has stress and the second vowel following the schewa
> also has stress and a dagesh.
>
> Thus Isaac's Num 18:10 is an instance of rule 1.
> Isaac's Gen 18:21 is an instance of rule 2a.
>
> There are additional rules listed by the Masoretes for cases
> where the schewa is to be vocalized.  In general, these
>
> I do not have a ready rule to answer the case of Jer 22:28.
> Perhaps, this is a case where the loss of the vowel (the
> hatef in this case represents an original vowel of the word,
> compare the singular hut'al) did not go into effect due to
> the slightly different intonation of the word that is given
> to it in its function as a question.
>
> Since Isaac and I figure so prominently in this discussion,
> I thought it might be interesting to point out another word
> that has a hatef patah in some manuscripts.  The next
> to last word in Gen 21:6.  This is very close to rule 2a
> except instead of a dagesh we have a maqqef that joins
> two letters.  I am sure it is there in Isaac's school bible
> because it appears that specifically the Mikraot Gdolot
> version has it and Isaac's school bible version appears
> based on the Mikraot Gdolot.  But then, the name Isaac
> from the Septuagint transliteration of my name shows
> you that there was originally a vowel there: yisaxaq =
> isaac (the guttural was not transliterated, but the two
> a's show the vowels before and after the guttural).
>
> Yitzhak Sapir
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew



More information about the b-hebrew mailing list