[b-hebrew] Isaiah 53: bruises?

UUC unikom at paco.net
Mon May 24 01:29:12 EDT 2004

Dear Harold,

Would you remind me of ANY instance when the transformations you describe
pushed out dagesh hazak?


Vadim Cherny

> >patah (as in haburah) is NEVER reduced to hatef.
> >Besides, even if reduction would be there, dagesh would remain.
> HH: You're right about the first part. I apologize. I assumed that
> "haburah" had a qames at the start. The lexicon gives three alternate
> spellings for this word, and it has no problem with dropping the
> dagesh.
> I'm not exactly sure why all the changes occur or why the alternate
> spelling for haburah occurs here. This is the kind of detail I
> generally avoid. I suspect it has something to do with the prefixed
> preposition B. Gutturals prefer pathach before them, and also the
> noun here is definite because of the suffix.
> A grammar (GKC 27b) will say that in an open syllable the language
> has frequently retained only a half-vowel where there originally
> stood a full short vowel. (Actually the letter X at the beginning of
> a word prefers hateph pathach.) That may be what has happened in this
> alternate spelling for haburah, and it may be due to the fact that
> otherwise there would be two adjacent pathachs because of the
> prefixed preposition ba- in the word in Isa 53:5: WBXBRTW. Also, you
> cannot normally have a short vowel in an open, unaccented syllable.
> So the ba- sound before X needs the guttural X to close the syllable.
> So the second pathach (under X) became hateph patach and the
> following dagesh with B dropped.
> With the dagesh and a pathach you have habburah. The hab- is a
> separate syllable. If you go to a hateph pathach, then you lose the
> separate syllable hab-, and I think the hateph pathach joins with the
> following bu  sound. In Isaiah 53:5 I guess the sound would be
> u-vach-(a)vu-ra-to
> There is another word for "stripe, mark" that also begins with a
> hateph pathach: XBRBRH (Jer 13:23).
> You are doubting a word here that the lexicons accept. Delitzsch says
> that it's the same word as in Isa 1:6. I would say you should invest
> in a good lexicon. You would save yourself a lot of headaches.
> Yours,
> Harold Holmyard
> >
> >
> >Sincerely,
> >
> >Vadim Cherny
> >
> >
> >>  >To begin with, haburah is a different word from havurah, since
> >you
> >>  >cannot account for hatef (ex-kamatz) in havurah.
> >>
> >>  HH: The hatef is there because of the 3ms pronominal suffix that has
> >>  been added to XBRH in Isa 53:5. When you add a pronoun suffix, it
> >>  often reduces the first vowel of the noun.
> >>
> >>  Yours,
> >>  Harold Holmyard
> >>
> >>  _______________________________________________
> >>  b-hebrew mailing list
> >>  b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> >>  http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> >>
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >b-hebrew mailing list
> >b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> >http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> _______________________________________________
> 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