Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Dr. Joel M. Hoffman" <joel AT exc.com>]

>I would like to ask the interested members' opinion on the origin of
>the word ???? shtayim.
>Remarkably, this word has a shwa with the shin, but a dagesh in the taw.
>A so-called shwa na` (mobile) is supposed not to be followed by a
>sharp begedkepet consonant sign: it should have a soft
>"veghedhkhefeth" variant, if the shwa we are dealing with had once
>been a vowel - i.e. if it really is a shwa na`.
>
>Of course, to the Masoretes there was only one shwa: representing the
>absence of a vowel.

Right (though others on this list disagree).  I go through this in
detail in my NYU book, where I include a discussion of the erroneous
thought process that led people to posit two kinds of shwa.

SHTAYIM is not the only problem with the two-shwa theory.  Classical
grammars assume (impossibly) that the vocal shwa is pronounced but
does not add a syllable.  Then, because of words like SHTAYIM, some
grammars invent a third kind of shwa.

But once you come to the realization that a shwa represents the lack
of a vowel --- no more, no less --- everything because eaiser and more
sensible.

-Joel

Joel M. Hoffman
http://www.exc.com/JoelHoffman