Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Shva merahephet

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Harold R. Holmyard III" <hholmyard AT ont.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Shva merahephet
  • Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 10:25:05 -0500

Dear Vadim,

Did any of you ever study the device of shva merahephet, the differenc between calBi (my dog), and calVei(dogs)? Any information on this?

HH: One difference between "my dog" on the one hand, and "dogs" in the construct form on the other, is the vowel pointing under the beth. With the plural word there is a sere, while the singular with a suffix takes hireq. There seems to be a shewa under the lamed in both cases. There also seems to be a difference because the beth in the singular word takes a dagesh, while there is no dagesh in beth on the plural word. You seem to be asking why there is no dagesh in the beth in the plural word, implying that it might be a result of the previous shewa, which you call a shva merahephet.

HH: I believe that some grammars call this a shewa medium (see Waltke-O'Connor 36.1.1c). Gesenius-Kautzsch-Cowley 10d states that originally the shewa was thought to be part of a "loosely closed" or "wavering" syllable. But this distinction has now been abandoned. The syllables are really closed, and the original vowel is not merely shortened but entirely elided. The fact that a following BeGadKePHaTH letter remains spirant (soft) instead of taking the dagesh lene is understood on the "supposition that the change from hard to spirant is older than the elision of the vowel, and that a prehistoric malakai (e.g.) became malakhai before being shortened to malkhey.

HH: I don't know what the most current thinking about this is. There is a newer grammar by Muroaka that I don't have. Waltke-O'Connor 1.6.3d states that the MT may reflect post-biblical developments in the double pronunciation of the "begadkephat" letters and that the external (i.e., non-biblical) evidence is confused.

HH: Waltke-O'Connor also suggest that the two sounds of the begakephat letters are allophones, variant sounds that arise due to the linguistic environment. That is, the variation is due to the sounds that precede and follow the letter. The variations are aspects of the same letter in different environments and do not lead to a contrast in meaning.

HH: So any information that you have on this topic would be helpful.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page