[b-hebrew] Shabbat in construct state?
amkjudaica at hotmail.com
Thu Aug 8 00:15:08 EDT 2013
Thank you for responding.
1) Is there any evidence for what you write about the dagesh?
2) Regardless, I don't see how that explains the different pointing of שבת in the two verses.
Ari KinsbergMA, PharmD, RPh, Certified ImmunizerBrooklyn, New York**************
Click here to register as a bone marrow donor. Save a life.
CC: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
From: if at math.bu.edu
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Shabbat in construct state?
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 00:08:11 -0400
To: amkjudaica at hotmail.com
I will tell you what I think about the patax (Wikipedia says about the qamatz that it is, or used to be, a
תנועה אחורית חצי-פתוחה מעוגלת
but this we can safely ignore as a mere finger-sucked fable), and this is, as far as I can go.
1. The יסוד מוסד of the Hebrew niyqud is that the dagesh was there first as the sole reading cue for a patax, a xiriq, or a qubuc, (זַנְבוֹת is an override) and that the NAQDANIYM based their punctuation on this dagesh. The dagesh has nothing to do, in my opinion, not with "gemination" and not with the "opening" and "closing" of syllables. Even the hardening of BGDKPT with a dagesh, is, in my opinion, merely incidental.
2. Upon seeing the dot in the word שבּת in Num. 28:10, the NAQDANIYM put a patax under the letter ש $in. Then they saw the next word בּשבּתּוwith two interior dgeshim (the initial dagesh is, methinks, but a vestige of a dot marking the beginning of the word), which prompted them to place two patax marks, one under the letter ש $in, and one under the letter ב bet, to read olAt $AbAt b$AbAto.
3. In Is. 66:23 the NAQDANIYM saw the dagesh in the letter ת of להשתּחות and this directed them to place a xiriq under the letter ה he.
4. A patax/qamatc interchange may change the meaning, for instance,דַּג זהב DAG ZAHAB, 'gold fish', versus דָּג זהב 'he fished gold'. But דַּגְתִּי 'I fished', with a patax under the letter ד dalet due to a dagesh in the letter ת tav.
Isaac Fried, Boston University
On Aug 7, 2013, at 8:37 AM, AMK Judaica wrote:The following examples of שבת have a patah under the bet rather than the expected kamatz:
2. Numbers: 28:10
עֹלַ֥ת שַׁבַּ֖ת בְּשַׁבַּתּ֑וֹ עַל-עֹלַ֥ת הַתָּמִ֖יד וְנִסְכָּֽהּ׃ פ
4. Chronicles I: 9:32
וּמִן-בְּנֵ֧י הַקֳּהָתִ֛י מִן-אֲחֵיהֶ֖ם עַל-לֶ֣חֶם הַֽמַּעֲרָ֑כֶת לְהָכִ֖ין שַׁבַּ֥ת שַׁבָּֽת׃
Some references list these occurrences under a construct rubric, which explains the patah. But why is there a construct state here? And regarding the first example, why does the identical phrase
2. Isaiah: 66:23
וְהָיָ֗ה מִֽדֵּי-חֹ֙דֶשׁ֙ בְּחָדְשׁ֔וֹ וּמִדֵּ֥י שַׁבָּ֖ת בְּשַׁבַּתּ֑וֹ יָב֧וֹא כָל-בָּשָׂ֛ר לְהִשְׁתַּחֲוֹ֥ת לְפָנַ֖י אָמַ֥ר ה'׃
have a kamatz?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the b-hebrew