[b-hebrew] Plural of חֵרֵשׁ (deaf)
pporta7 at gmail.com
Fri Apr 8 00:50:25 EDT 2011
> (Pere Porta)
> Why do you assume that the first sere should be reduced to hatef patah in
> your view?
> Why not to hatef segol?
> Would it not be more logical that a sere becomes hatef segol (and not hatef
> patah) when reduced?
> (George Athas)
Vowel reduction turns a qamets or sere into a shewa. If that shewa is
beneath a guttural, it will usually become a hatef patah, since gutturals
generally prefer A-class vowels. In any case, though, I'd still be
comfortable with a hatef segol. My question is, why doesn't it?
I think, George, the right answer to your question is this:
1. Only a very few nouns, consisting of three root letters, that have sere
in the first syllable of their basic form change the sere to hatef patah in
a. חֵטְא, sin -------- look at Ec 10:4
b. עֵמֶק, vale ------- look at 1K 20:28
c. חֵלֶק, part ------- look at Js 18:5
d. חֵלֶב, fat --------- look at Lv 8:26
e. עֵנָב, grape ---- look at Gn 40:10
2. Nouns (also consisting of three root consonants) having sere in both the
first and the second syllable are grouped or divided into:
a) normal, so to say, nouns: תֵּבֵל, world (Ps 19:5); טֵבֶת, Tebeth (the
tenth month of the Jewish calendar) (Est 2:16)...
b) nouns with "tashlum dagesh". These are nouns that really fit within the
same pattern as, for instance, אִלֵּם, dumb (Ex 4:11) or עִוֵּר, blind (Ex
4:11). But because of the guttural or the resh in the second place --which,
as we know, take never dagesh-- the hiriq becomes sere.
This is the case for חֵרֵשׁ, deaf (Ex 4:11) or קֵרֵחַ, bald (Lv 13:40),
Now, the same as in the first kind nouns in b) keep the hiriq in the
declension, the second kind nouns in b) keep their first sere.
And so: אִלְּמִים, dumb ones (Is 56:10)
For the sake of keeping the same path between the two kinds of nouns
reported in b), the sere remains in the plural חֵרְשִׁים, deafs (Is 35:5).
Anyway, as I said, the Academy states that the first sere is to be kept in
the declension whenever it is used, in the basic form, for "tashlum dagesh"
------ look at the Hahlatot, 2006, ISSN 0024-1091, page 31, kelal gimel.
And let me now, to end the post, ask:
Why אֶחָד, one, has segol and not sere? Would the sere not be more "logical"
in an open syllable?
(Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain)
> GEORGE ATHAS
> Moore Theological College (Sydney, Australia)
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
More information about the b-hebrew