Biblical Hebrew Forum

[kgraham0938 AT comcast.net]

@Dave:

Ya know I was thinking about that.  The Yod being the reason for the shewa, 
but I did not have any grammar books to support me and did not want to come 
on here just guessing.  But that did cross my mind.  Thanks

--
Kelton Graham 
KGRAHAM0938 AT comcast.net

-------------- Original message -------------- 

> http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/index.jsp 
> The online Jewish Encyclopedia, in its article “Jehovah” 
> gives its explanation concerning why a shewa, 
> and not the composite shewa [hatef patah] 
> appears in Y:HOWFH: 
> >>> 
> The use of the composite "shewa" "hatef segol" in cases where "Elohim" is 
> to be read 
> has led to the opinion that the composite "shewa" "hatef patah" 
> ought to have been used to indicate the reading "Adonay." 
> 
> It has been argued in reply that the disuse of the "patah" 
> is in keeping with the Babylonian system, 
> in which the composite "shewa" is not usual. 
> 
> But the reason why the "patah" is dropped 
> is plainly the non-guttural character of the "yod"; 
> 
> to indicate the reading "Elohim," however, 
> the "segol" (and "hireq" under the last syllable ) 
> had to appear in order that a mistake might not be made and "Adonay" be 
> repeated. 
> 
> FWIW 
> Dave Donnelly 
> _______________________________________________ 
> b-hebrew mailing list 
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org 
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew 
>From davedonnelly1 AT juno.com  Wed Sep  7 10:59:51 2005
Return-Path: <davedonnelly1 AT juno.com>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from m11.nyc.untd.com (m11.nyc.untd.com [64.136.22.74])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4F80E4C00B
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Wed,  7 Sep 2005 10:59:51 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from m11.nyc.untd.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
        by m11.nyc.untd.com with SMTP id AABBT8AC9AHNAE8J
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org> (sender <davedonnelly1 AT juno.com>);
        Wed,  7 Sep 2005 07:59:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from davedonnelly1 AT juno.com) 
        by m11.nyc.untd.com (jqueuemail) id K4A8MK4Y;
        Wed, 07 Sep 2005 07:59:20 PDT
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 10:58:37 -0400
Message-ID: <20050907.105838.2632.1.davedonnelly1 AT juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 5.0.13
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 8-6, 7-8, 10-11, 13-19, 21-29, 33-36, 38-40, 42-55, 58-71,
        73-86, 88-91, 92-32767
From: David P Donnelly <davedonnelly1 AT juno.com>
X-ContentStamp: 20:10:1669852120
X-MAIL-INFO: 
015aefcf5aef3f777777337e9fabee6f474e4343f7020a2b671f0efbdae39b43faba0ee39b873e37c3373f13afef9f372a9aae0f1eceae9e27eeee0fceebb3be5b936ad7fadb8b4a4fca636a638eca4f171e5b5b8bc34ef3ae8ea79e6e1e0b0abaee7ffe
X-UNTD-OriginStamp: 
r/B0slmPzvgnHQoWnu8pvNvkKtQsKENfIy4ZTdh6mNgeBQ8MIZsngv1p7//jjZyJ
X-UNTD-Peer-Info: 127.0.0.1|localhost|m11.nyc.untd.com|davedonnelly1 AT juno.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.6
Subject: [b-hebrew] gutturals and composite shewa
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6
Precedence: list
List-Id: Hebrew Bible List <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 14:59:51 -0000

Kelton,

The Jewish Encyclopedia of 1901-1906 does not seem to be consistent in
their reasoning.

Concerning Y:HOWFH which has a simple shewa, not a composite shewa, under
the yod they say :

>>>
But the reason why the "patah" is dropped 
 is plainly the non-guttural character of the "yod"; 
>>>

Yet concerning Y:EHOWIH which has a composite shewa under the yod they
say:

>>>
to indicate the reading "Elohim," however, 
 the "segol" (and "hireq" under the last syllable ) 
 had to appear in order that a mistake might not be made and "Adonay" be 
 repeated. 
>>>

The Jewish Encyclopedia has no problem with Y:EHOWIH having a composite
shewa [i.e. a hatef segol] under the yod, yet they feel it is necessary
to explain why Y:HOWFH should not have a composite shewa [i.e. a hatef
patah] under the yod.

They do not seem to be consistent on their reasoning.

They have no problem with the non-guttural yod having a composite shewa
under it,
when that composite shewa is a hatef segol.

They only seems to have a problem with a non-guttural yod having a
composite shewa under it,
when that composite shewa is a hatef patah.

Dave Donnelly






-------------- Original message -------------- 

@Dave:

Ya know I was thinking about that.  The Yod being the reason for the
shewa, but I did not have any grammar books to support me and did not
want to come on here just guessing.  But that did cross my mind.  Thanks

--
Kelton Graham 
KGRAHAM0938 at comcast.net

-------------- Original message -------------- 

> http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/index.jsp 
> The online Jewish Encyclopedia, in its article “Jehovah” 
> gives its explanation concerning why a shewa, 
> and not the composite shewa [hatef patah] 
> appears in Y:HOWFH: 
> >>> 
> The use of the composite "shewa" "hatef segol" in cases where "Elohim"
is 
> to be read 
> has led to the opinion that the composite "shewa" "hatef patah" 
> ought to have been used to indicate the reading "Adonay." 
> 
> It has been argued in reply that the disuse of the "patah" 
> is in keeping with the Babylonian system, 
> in which the composite "shewa" is not usual. 
> 
> But the reason why the "patah" is dropped 
> is plainly the non-guttural character of the "yod"; 
> 
> to indicate the reading "Elohim," however, 
> the "segol" (and "hireq" under the last syllable ) 
> had to appear in order that a mistake might not be made and "Adonay" be

> repeated. 
> 
> FWIW 
> Dave Donnelly 
>From yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com  Wed Sep  7 11:10:29 2005
Return-Path: <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from zproxy.gmail.com (zproxy.gmail.com [64.233.162.205])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C14594C00B
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Wed,  7 Sep 2005 11:10:29 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 13so954868nzp
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Wed, 07 Sep 2005 08:10:29 -0700 
(PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        
h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        
b=M/0h6BTieFQEdHXbmlFAoz02aMhKJuXZqiSOuxnlYHrJ5v/RBUmgHGuMfDBIuBDI1eVIihV/tfC7wM4Qck3L3VA2rus0z0CRUnm7rKC9tlFd1/i+O+j5BVtYiyisxqsyGJhAztsGAQIHKv+IaxTRUeaK5tcqF/0f3+O30fAn25U=
Received: by 10.36.79.10 with SMTP id c10mr4211638nzb;
        Wed, 07 Sep 2005 08:10:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.36.57.6 with HTTP; Wed, 7 Sep 2005 08:10:28 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <e6ea6c0005090708104633bd58 AT mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 18:10:28 +0300
From: Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
In-Reply-To: 
<090620051159.14771.431D8488000470D1000039B32207020653C8CCC7CF030E080E9D0905 AT comcast.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: 
<090620051159.14771.431D8488000470D1000039B32207020653C8CCC7CF030E080E9D0905 AT comcast.net>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] gutturals and composite shewa
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6
Precedence: list
List-Id: Hebrew Bible List <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 15:10:29 -0000

On 9/6/05, Kelton Graham wrote:
> @ Harold, Dave, Yitzhan, Yigal

Yitzhak

>=20
> So if this rule is correct, which it looks like it is, is this the reason=
 why
> YHWH, has a shewa instead of a composite shewa under the yod, when=20
> being vocalized as Adonai?

I think that the reason might have to do with the way the Massorah marks
developed.  Perhaps originally there was no composite schwa, only schwa,
and this was done for the Tetragrammaton.  Later, when certain "composite
schwa" marks began to be differentiated, this was done for Hataph Segol
in the case of the Tetragrammaton and not done for Hataph Patah in the
case of the Tetragrammaton.  All of this is "perhaps" but it explains how
such a development could have occurred.  The schwa in the case of=20
a single Tetragrammaton is intended to vocalize a "Hataph Patah." =20

Yitzhak Sapir