[b-hebrew] Meteg and Shva Na/Nah
davidhamuel at sbcglobal.net
Wed Dec 3 14:13:23 EST 2008
There seems to be a controversy over the use of a meteg in Masoretic
manuscripts. I know this is a complicated topic and not all about it is
clear and agreed by all. My specific question is related to a meteg under a
letter that is followed by a letter that has a Shva. What is the prevailing
view - that the Masoretes intended to use this meteg to indicate that the
following Shva is a Shva Na OR that that Masoretes did not intend to
indicate anything about the following Shva (even though in most cases this
happens to be a Shva Na)? Or are there other views?
I'm very interested in hearing about sources (medieval grammarians, modern
grammarians) that address this question.
Yes, indeed this is a complicated topic.
> he Masoretes intended to use this meteg to indicate that the following Shva is a Shva Na
Yes (or probably :) ) For example, meteg + vav--shuruk; Leviticus 25:34 ( the sheva was nach, with the meteg -- na). Genesis 21:6 (the last word with the makef) -- here you have more complicated issue: nasog ahor.
> sources (medieval grammarians, modern grammarians) that address this question.
1. Dikduke ha-Te'amim -- Dotan editon, part b.
2. Heidenheim -- Mishpete ha-Te'amim
3. Levita -- Tuv Ta'am
4. Norzi -- Ma'amar ha-Ma'arich
5. Balmes -- Mikneh Avraham.
> For example: [vay-,yo:m-'ru:] -- more accurately pronounced [vay-,yo-om-'ru-u].
Now we read it with sheva na. See the chumash by Rabbi Prof. Breuer.
Biblical Hebrew, Grammar & Cantillation Expert
Los Angeles, CA — USA
More information about the b-hebrew