[b-hebrew] re.: Inseparable Prepositions and that shewa
vadimcherny at gmail.com
Fri Apr 16 15:40:42 EDT 2010
The question is largely moot. Though the MT differentiates between
shwa, patah, and segol, this not a case with Babylonian notation.
Thus, in terms of quantity and quality vocal shwa is not drastically
different from segol or, for that matter, any ultra-short vowel.
Syllabification really depends on the diction. You would have
different syllabification in speech and singing, in stand-alone words
and emphatic clauses.
Dagesh kal need not follow any closed syllable: citvei, dvarchem.
Look at it the other way around: dagesh kal is used for, and only for
syllabification. Like their many other chanting marks, dagesh kal was
meant by the Masoretes for chanting: it forcibly syllabifies the words.
Your opinions please.
My grammars are divided into two schools of thought concerning the way
an inseparable preposition attaches itself to a word that begins with
a vocal shewa.
The first school of thought says that under these conditions, an
inseparable preposition creates a closed syllable at the beginning of
a word, usually invoking the "rule of shewa." However, this approach
ignores the absence of a dagesh lene in any following begadkephat
The second says that the initial syllable is left open with the hireq
vowel, with vocal shewa following. The absence of a dagesh lene in a
following begadkephat letter is often cited as proof. However, this
approach ignores the usual rule that a short vowel likes to be closed
in an unaccented syllable.
1. So, which do we choose? How do we account for the problems that
2. And more importantly, how did this situation come about?
3. Is Modern Hebrew pronunciation influencing the situation here? And
if so, should it?
More information about the b-hebrew