Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yigal Levin <Yigal-Levin AT utc.edu>]

Pere,

Both of the cases you gave (and there are dozens more) are examples of a
"silent Aleph", in which the Aleph is part of the root, and so is not
ignored, but has no phonetic value. If it were a "regular" consonant and
not an Aleph, it would have a Shewa. For this reason, the vowel sign is on
the previous letter. Look at Ex. 12:2, at both "ro)$" and "ri)$on".

As for Israeli Hebrew - there is a tendency to "normalize" spelling, and
also to "fill in" matres lectonis where "vowelled" spelling would not call
for them. But where the Aleph is recognizably part of the root, it would be
a mistake to replace it with a Vav. Thus, "rosh" would always be
Resh-Aleph-Shin, but "lomar" (to say) could be spelled with either an Aleph
or a Vav after the Lamed.


Yigal

At 07:28 AM 7/3/2003 +0200, Pere Porta Roca wrote:
>I'm asking: the holam generally written on the aleph in such words as in Jb
>30:16 (3d. word before the end of verse), in Jr 13:21 (4th word before the
>end of verse), should it not be put on the preceding iod instead of on the
>aleph?
>
>
>Does anyone of you know if in today Israeli hebrew must this holam be
>written as a waw (a waw that should be written between the iod and the
>aleph)?
>
>My advanced heartly thanks to those who will replay.
>
>Pere
>
>_______________________________________________
>b-hebrew mailing list
>b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
>
Dr. Yigal Levin
Dept. of Philosophy and Religion
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
615 McCallie Avenue
Chattanooga TN 37403-2598
U.S.A.