Biblical Hebrew Forum

["S. L." <lyosovs AT cityline.ru>]

 

-----Исходное сообщение-----
От: S. L. <lyosovs AT cityline.ru>
Кому: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Дата: 26 октября 2001 г. 22:56

Dear List,

What do you think about Tiberian Hebrew punctuation of the cluster Auslaut with a final shwa, like wayyaZq (‘and he gave to drink’), or `att (‘thou’ f.), quZT (‘truth’), or ka:tabt and many more? And why did they vocalise wayyaZq etc. with a final shwa, but morphonologically identical wayye:T <*wayye:nT (‘and he bent’) without shwa and without dagesh? (I assume they could not fail to notice that wayye:T <*wayye:nT).

In what way `att is different from wayye:T?

It is true I do not know an example of a final geminated (having a dagesh in it) consonant + shwa that in not a bgdpkt but what does it have to do with this graphics?

Additional concern: we were taught that for the original Naqdanim the shwa sign meant just a zero vowel. Why then put it under the last letter of wayyaZq etc.?

Each time I teach first-year students I try to find a way to expose these things in a philologically exhaustive yet non-contradictory way, but it seems I am failing again.

Sergey Lyosov