[b-hebrew] FW: Meteg and Shva Na/Nah

AMK Judaica amkjudaica at hotmail.com
Wed Dec 3 15:04:06 EST 2008


david,
 
1) the breuer bible editions don't distinguish between sheva na/nach. i assume by chumash you are referring to his tikkun, but are you sure that he himself was responsible for inserting the na/nach markings here? my impression is that this he didn't do this himself
 
2) i'm not clear from your response to rivka. do you think that every meteg before a sheva, according to the massorets, is na? if so how do you account for the hundreds (thousands?) of examples where it is impossible for the meteg to indicate na (e.g., before a guttoral letter).
 
3) r. breuer listed 10 different classes of metagim; some metagim were definately before sheva nach. (and iirc ditto yeivin)
 
kol tuv,
ari kinsberg
blog: http://agmk.blogspot.com> Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:13:23 -0800> From: davidhamuel at sbcglobal.net> To: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Meteg and Shva Na/Nah> > > 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. > > Many thanks!> Rivka Sherman-Gold> > > ===============> > > 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.> > Selected sources:> > 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. > > > > Best,> > David Hamuel> Type Designer > Biblical Hebrew, Grammar & Cantillation Expert> > Los Angeles, CA — USA> > > > > > _______________________________________________> b-hebrew mailing list> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
_________________________________________________________________
Suspicious message? There’s an alert for that. 
http://windowslive.com/Explore/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_broad2_122008


More information about the b-hebrew mailing list